The Attitude of Canadian University Students towards a Behaviour-Based Blood Donor Health Assessment Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 3342 Background: As part of Canadian Blood Services policy (CBS), men who have sex with men (MSM) are indefinitely deferred from donating blood due to an increased risk for HIV infection. This policy has generated controversy, especially amongst student populations, due its perceived discrimination against homosexual men. Objectives: 1) To determine the acceptability of a behaviour-based donor health questionnaire amongst Canadian university students and assess its suitability as an alternative to the current MSM policy. 2) To determine the perception of blood safety associated with specific risk behaviours. Methods: We conducted a survey amongst students at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. A questionnaire was designed that included questions found on the current CBS donor health survey, and behaviour-based questions derived from studies assessing high risk factors for HIV. For each question, participants were asked to rate its acceptability and its perceived effect on blood safety using 7-point Likert scales. They were also asked whether the question would deter them from future donations. Data was analyzed using non-parametric tests. Results: 741/3500 (21.2%) students participated in the study. Students rated both current and behavioural questions as equally acceptable and the majority (89-97%) would not be deterred from donating blood in the future by any question. The response scores for both sets of questions were significantly correlated. Questions on donor's sexual practices were rated less acceptable compared to those on high risk behaviours. Sexually transmitted infections, injection drug use and sex for money were considered high risk behaviours for blood safety (69-95% unsafe). In contrast, sexual practices (MSM, anal intercourse, condom use, knowledge of partner's sexual background) were rated less important for blood safety (30 to 62% unsafe). We found an inverse correlation between the perception of safety and the acceptability of questions (Table). 24.4% of students rated both questions on MSM status and a behaviour-based alternative as equally unacceptable. Discussion: A behaviour-based screening modification is unlikely to change opinions or satisfy those who object the current MSM policy. Acceptability of these questions might be related to a poor understanding of the effect of sexual practices on blood supply safety. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".