Vasovagal symptoms mediate the relationship between predonation anxiety and subsequent blood donation in female volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although not universal, a certain amount of predonation anxiety is common and not surprising among inexperienced blood donors. Variations in predonation anxiety, however, may influence the donor's experience in several respects and might be related to the likelihood of subsequent donation even among those who do not report particularly high levels of anxiety. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 671 inexperienced blood donors (zero or one prior donation) enrolled in a treatment study and completed questionnaires assessing anxiety before and after giving blood. Ratings of pain and blood donation-related symptoms were obtained after giving blood, as well as information from the nurses about the blood donation procedure. Follow-up information on number of additional visits to a blood collection clinic during the subsequent year was also obtained for most participants. RESULTS: Predonation anxiety was positively related to ratings of blood donation-related symptoms and chair reclining by the nurses and negatively related to the donor's rating, obtained at the end of the procedure, of the likelihood that he or she would give blood again. Women, but not men, with higher predonation anxiety were significantly less likely to return to a blood clinic in the following year. The results of mediation analyses suggest that this was due to the association between anxiety and donation-related symptoms. CONCLUSION: The results do not indicate whether or not it is feasible or useful to modify predonation anxiety, but highlight the relationships between the emotional state of inexperienced donors and several aspects of the donation experience, including subsequent donor return. Further study of the psychosocial aspects of blood donation and examination of related research (e.g., treatment of dental anxieties) may be worthwhile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".