Qualitative analysis of <scp>Canadian</scp> blood and plasma donors' views on expanding donor screening eligibility for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many countries, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) continue to be screened based on their sex or gender and the sex or gender of their sexual partner. However, there is growing support that screening based on specific sexual behaviors that pose risk of transfusion transmissible infection is a better approach to donor screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This paper reports results from Phase 1 (qualitative) of a mixed-methods study on Canadian blood and plasma donors' views on expanding eligibility for gbMSM by changing to sexual behavior-based screening. Semistructured interview data with 40 donors (whole blood = 20, plasma = 20; male = 21, female = 18, nonbinary = 1; mean age = 46.2; 10% participation rate) in Canada were analyzed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: All participants, except one, supported the change as they anticipated that at least one of three outcomes would be achieved: increasing blood supply, enhancing equity, and improving or maintaining the safety of blood supply. One donor who was more skeptical of the change questioned the scientific evidence for the change and indicated mistrust of state institutions. The discussion considers implications for blood operators' communication strategies that can be used to reduce donor discomfort with the changes to donor screening. CONCLUSION: In a nonrandom, purposive sample of 40 Canadian blood and plasma donors, most participants held favorable views regarding expanding the eligibility of gbMSM donors based on sexual risk behavior. Understanding donors' views on increasing eligibility may inform Canadian Blood Services and other blood operators as they develop their communications plans.
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 | 0.001 | 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".