The impact of the context and recruitment materials on nondonors' willingness to donate blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety is a frequently cited barrier to blood donor recruitment. Although the mere presence of donation paraphernalia can heighten anxiety for some individuals, such stimuli are a necessary and unavoidable part of donation. Drawing on France and colleagues' research on tailored donor education and coping materials, the current study assessed whether modifying recruitment materials could improve donor recruitment in a context where anxiety is heightened. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A field study comprising a 2 (presence or absence of a mobile blood collection unit [MCU]) × 2 (recruitment brochure: standard, coping) between-subjects design was conducted with 922 nondonors who believed themselves eligible to donate blood. In either the presence or absence of the MCU, participants received a standard or modified recruitment brochure modeled on France and colleagues' education and coping materials. Donation anxiety, attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, and intention were assessed, and donation behavior was tracked for 30 days. RESULTS: Participants who were assessed in the presence of the MCU reported heightened anxiety, and female participants reported decreased self-efficacy. The coping brochure improved self-efficacy, heightened the intention to donate in the presence of the MCU, and promoted blood donation behavior relative to the standard brochure. Path analyses supported a model in which, in the presence of the MCU, the coping brochure boosted self-efficacy and led to increased donation intention and behavior. CONCLUSIONS: In a context in which donation-related anxiety is heightened, provision of materials that address prospective donor concerns and suggest coping strategies can bolster self-efficacy and promote recruitment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".