Donors' psychological reactions to deferral following false‐positive screening test results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Being notified of a false-positive infectious disease marker result can cause psychological distress in blood donors. A new notification process, informing donors of the possibility of re-entry, was compared with the previous one in which donors were indefinitely deferred to evaluate the mitigating effect on donors' psychological distress levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of donors, 'deferred donors' (DD) and 'donors eligible for re-entry' (DER), completed a questionnaire involving 5-point scales. Levels of psychological distress, attitude towards blood donation, desire to donate blood in the future and perception of notification process quality were assessed. RESULTS: Attitudes towards blood donation (P = 0·0276) (DD: 3·94 ± 0·11 vs. DER 4·21 ± 0·09) and perceived quality of communication (P = 0·0108) (DD: 2·72 ± 0·12 vs. DER 3·08 ± 0·10) were significantly improved with the new notification process. No significant difference was found between groups in psychological distress levels or desire to donate blood in the future. CONCLUSION: Informing donors of the possibility of re-entry appears to contribute to maintaining a positive predisposition towards future blood donation. It does not, however, appear to alleviate the distress felt after being notified of a false-positive infectious disease marker result, nor does it increase willingness to give blood again in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".