Motivators and barriers to blood donation among potential donors of African and Caucasian ethnicity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minority blood donation, especially from individuals of African ethnicity, is a focus for many countries with diverse populations. As the need for antigen-negative RBC transfusions for patients with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) continues to grow, inclusion of more African blood donors is essential to ensure this demand is met. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study aims to explore barriers and motivators to blood donation and awareness of SCD among potential donors of diverse ethnic backgrounds in Ireland. Following ethical approval, patients attending the National Sickle Cell Disease and Thalassemia service at St James's Hospital were invited to share an online anonymous survey within their local communities to achieve snowball-sampling. RESULTS: 387 respondents completed the survey, including 311 non-donors (median age 25 years, 67% female). Ethnic backgrounds included: African or African-Irish (59%), White or Caucasian (25%), Asian (8%), Hispanic or Latino (3%), Middle Eastern (3%), Multiracial or Biracial (2%). The most commonly identified barrier overall was lack of information on blood donation. African respondents were significantly more likely to report lack of information and malaria-related barriers than Caucasians. Motivators also varied across ethnic groups, with African respondents more likely to donate to help someone within their own community or for religious motivators. Awareness of SCD was higher among African respondents. DISCUSSION: While some barriers to blood donation are shared across all ethnic groups including lack of information, notable differences exist between Caucasian and African respondents. Specific actions to recruit and retain African blood donors should focus on these key areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".