Results from the blood donor competence, autonomy, and relatedness enhancement (blood donor <scp>CARE</scp>) randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to promote competence, autonomy, and relatedness among first-time whole blood donors to enhance intrinsic motivation and increase retention. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a full factorial design, first-time donors (N = 2002) were randomly assigned to a no-treatment control condition or to one of seven intervention conditions designed to promote donation competence, autonomy, relatedness, a combination of two (e.g., competence and autonomy), or all three constructs. Participants completed donor motivation measures before the intervention and 6 weeks later, and subsequent donation attempts were assessed for 1 year. RESULTS: There was no significant group difference in the frequency of donation attempts or in the number of days to return. Significant effects of group were observed for 10 of the 12 motivation measures, although follow-up analyses revealed significant differences from the control group were restricted to interventions that included an autonomy component. Path analyses confirmed direct associations between interventions involving autonomy and donor motivation, and indirect mediation of donation attempts via stronger donation intentions and lower donation anxiety. CONCLUSION: Among young, first-time, whole blood donors, brief interventions that include support for donor autonomy were associated with direct effects on donor motivation and indirect, but small, effects on subsequent donation behavior.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".