Whole blood donor return rates after deferral for tattooing or body piercing—Survey across blood donation services: The <scp>BEST</scp> collaborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To protect transfusion recipients from transfusion-transmissible infections, blood donors are deferred from donating after recent tattooing or piercing. To explore to what extent and how this deferral impacts donor availability, we performed an international study to investigate how many donors were deferred for a recent tattoo or piercing and how many of these donors returned to donate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed blood centre members of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative and the European Blood Alliance Donor Studies Working Group on their numbers of donations, tattoo and piercing deferrals, and return rates in the year 2017. RESULTS: Eight blood centres participated. Overall, deferral rates were lower for repeat donors compared to new donors. Repeat donors were more likely to return than new donors. Women and young donors were more often deferred than male and older donors. Men were more demotivated by tattoo or piercing deferral, resulting in lower return rates compared to women. Return rates differed greatly between blood centres. CONCLUSION: Tattoo and piercing deferrals lead to missed donations and result in lower return rates. However, the numbers vary largely internationally, probably due to cultural and policy differences. Shortening deferral periods after tattooing or piercing may reduce the impact on donor availability, which should be investigated in single-centre studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".