Alternatives to blood donor deferral of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: Acceptability of screening the sexual risk behavior of all blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood operators screen donors to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs). Many are evolving screening procedures from those that defer all who have had a sexual interaction with gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to an approach that assesses individual donors' recent sexual risk behavior with any partner. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A representative sample of current blood donors (N = 1194) was recruited online and randomized to complete either the existing (at the time of the study) Canadian Blood Services' donor questionnaire (DQ) that screens out those with recent gbMSM sexual experience, a modified donor questionnaire (MDQ) that assesses individuals' recent sexual behavior with any partner, or an MDQ that assesses individual sexual behavior with any partner and explains why these questions are asked. Respondents were asked for their perceptions concerning difficulty, comfort, and acceptability of these screening questionnaires. RESULTS: Across experimental conditions, current donors regarded screening questionnaire difficulty to be low; discomfort in responding was minimal; screening questionnaires were perceived to be relatively inoffensive and justified, and very few donors would cease donating if the screening questionnaire they responded to became the one in general use. Some minor sex differences were observed, and in some cases, perceptions of the MDQ with explanation were somewhat more positive than those of the DQ and MDQ without explanation. DISCUSSION: An individual risk behavior screening approach appears to be acceptable to current blood donors as an alternative to screening out all who have recently engaged in gbMSM sexual interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".