MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280532961 · doi:10.1111/tme.12875

A critical contribution in a time of crisis: Examining motivations and deterrents to <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 convalescent plasma donation and future donation intentions among prospective <scp>Canadian</scp> donors

2022· article· en· W4280532961 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kelly Holloway, Chantal Campbell, Ridwaanah Ali, Larkin Davenport Huyer, Dana Hart, Jennie Haw, Sarah Brennenstuhl, Quinn Grundy

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsDonationContext (archaeology)OddsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyScale (ratio)MedicineFamily medicineSocial psychologyLogistic regressionInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To understand motivations and deterrents to donate COVID-19 convalescent plasma for a clinical trial and determine whether they predict intention to donate source plasma. BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian Blood Services was involved in three nationally coordinated convalescent plasma clinical trials, requiring the recruitment of several thousand prospective convalescent plasma donors. Understanding the motivations and deterrents of donors in the unique context of a clinical trial and ongoing pandemic can inform recruitment for source plasma donation beyond a clinical trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We invited 2785 Canadians who had registered interest in donating COVID-19 convalescent plasma to participate in an online survey containing a 42-item scale on motivators of and deterrents to donation. Between April 26th and May 19th, 2021, 979 responded (35.1%). We included a final sample of 820 participants with sufficient data across all scales. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis determined the factor structure of the scale. Regression analysis assessed the extent to which the factors predicted intention to donate. RESULTS: Four factors were identified: 'helping relationally', 'deterrents to donation', 'social facilitators', and 'access to the donation centre', each with good internal consistency (α = 0.78-95). Higher scores on the helping relationally scale were associated with higher odds of intention to donate, whereas higher scores on the deterrents scale were associated with lower odds of intention to donate. CONCLUSION: Participants were motivated by an interest in helping people who are ill and contributing to research committed to finding treatments in a time of crisis. Outside the crisis context, blood service operators seeking to recruit source plasma donors should emphasise its lifesaving potential and the impact of donation on the community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion MedicineSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207