Vaccine‐incentivized blood donation: A survey of public perceptions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Canadian blood donations declined during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversely, vaccine demand outpaced supply during the initial stages of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Canada. This study investigates public perceptions regarding vaccine-incentivized blood donation, among COVID-19 and future pandemics, in Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-question survey was developed and distributed in person and online to Canadians during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were asked questions about demographics, blood donation eligibility, previous donations and sentiments towards vaccine-incentivized blood donation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 787 respondents completed the survey with representation from all sexes, ages, races, locations of residence and work employment. Overall, 176 (22%) participants self-identified as working or living in healthcare settings, 511 (65%) were currently able to donate blood products, 247 (31%) previously donated blood and 48 (6%) donated blood during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the exception of ineligible blood donors, many Canadians, particularly previous blood donors, were agreeable with this incentivization proposal. Many participants claimed they would donate blood products for vaccines during COVID-19 and future pandemics but raised concerns about the equitableness of such approach. CONCLUSION: Vaccine-incentivized blood donation was viewed positively by many Canadians in our study. Future research must investigate the equity and feasibility of this strategy. In the interim, further strategies should be explored to encourage blood donation in Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".