MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385253650 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11152115

The Quality of Blood Donation Services and Its Association with Blood Donors’ Trust and Loyalty at Makkah Blood Donation Centers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4385253650 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Kabrah, Samer Abuzerr, Ruba Almaghrabi, Raed Alserihi, Raed I. Felimban, Abdulrahman Mujalli, Akhmed Aslam, Bassem Refaat, Amr J Halawani, Adel A. Alzhrani, Naif AlMoteri, Fauziah Abusaadh, Rasha Bulkhi

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUmm Al-Qura University
KeywordsBlood donorCross-sectional studyLoyaltyDonationMedicineBlood donationsQuality (philosophy)Family medicineEnvironmental healthBusinessMarketingImmunologyPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the quality of blood donation services and its association with blood donors’ trust and loyalty at Makkah blood donation centers in Saudi Arabia. A total of 373 healthy blood donors aged ≥18 years who visited blood donation centers in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, between 1st and 28th February 2023 were recruited using a census sampling method. A pre-tested and validated Arabic language questionnaire was employed. The study survey included a checklist of sociodemographic variables (seven items), as well as seven-point Likert-scale questions on the quality of blood donation services (21 items), questions to assess the participant’s level of trust in blood donation centers (4 items), and questions to evaluate the level of loyalty to blood donations (4 items). SPSS (version 24) was used for data analysis. A total of 373 blood donors were included in this study. Of them, 240 (64.3%) were males and 133 (35.7%) were females. The vast majority of the study participants, 330 (88.5%), had a high educational level. The overall average agreement score for the quality of blood donation services was 71.7%. Furthermore, the overall average item agreement score for trust in blood donation centers and places was 83.0%, while the overall average item agreement score for loyalty to blood donation was 72.1%. Moreover, after adjustment for potential confounding factors, high levels of quality in blood donation services were associated with high levels of trust and loyalty among the blood donors (OR: 1.518, CI 95%: 0.321–0.864 and OR: 2.466, CI 95%: 0.285–0.763, respectively) (p-value < 0.05 for all). The overall quality of, trust in, and loyalty to blood donation services were 71.7%, 83.0%, and 72.1%, respectively. In addition, high levels of quality in blood donation services could improve blood donors’ trust and loyalty levels at Makkah blood donation centers in Saudi Arabia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207