Contextual factors influencing donor recruitment and cord blood collection: perspectives of frontline staff of the Canadian Blood Services' Cord Blood Bank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord blood (CB) is an important source of hematopoietic stem cells that are used to treat blood- and immune-system disorders. Public CB banks aim to build inventories with high-quality CB units to meet healthcare needs. While research has noted the influence of broader contextual factors on donor recruitment and CB collection processes, to date, no published study has identified the specific contextual factors and challenges to donor recruitment and CB collection. This paper addresses this gap in the literature. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative case study focusing on donor recruitment and CB collection processes was conducted to identify the contextual factors influencing these processes. This paper reports the findings from in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with 15 frontline staff of the Canadian Blood Services' Cord Blood Bank. Interview data were analyzed using inductive interpretive methods to identify the contextual conditions and factors that influence recruitment and collection. RESULTS: Frontline staff described various social factors that influenced and challenged the processes of donor recruitment and CB collection. These were categorized into four overlapping contexts: birthing context, hospital context, CB bank organizational context, and sociocultural context. CONCLUSION: Consideration of social context is necessary in order to effectively address the factors and challenges that influence the successful development of high-quality CB inventories, and to guide resource allocation. Further examination of contextually-rooted factors and their interactions is necessary to optimize donor recruitment and CB collection processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".