Improving gay, bisexual and transgender inclusion in blood and plasma donation policies and programmes in Canada: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of blood operators around the world, including those in Canada, have removed time-based deferral periods for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men and replaced them with sexual behaviour-based questions for all donors. While this marks a significant shift in screening approach, what remains unclear is how members of two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (2S/LGBTQ+) communities view blood operators' initiatives to be more inclusive. As such, this study was conducted to assess the awareness of donor screening changes and other initiatives among members of 2S/LGBTQ+ communities and to explore their recommendations for blood operators' work with these communities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 15) were conducted with 2S/LGBTQ+ people across Canada. Data were analysed using open inductive coding methods. RESULTS: Reported here are the key results on recommendations for blood operators. Three themes were identified from the data: (1) the need for increased communications with 2S/LGBTQ+ communities surrounding changes to donor policies and guidelines; (2) the need for trans-inclusive policy and procedures; and (3) the need for culturally responsive and equity-informed staff training at donor centres. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that blood operators should consider 2S/LGTBQ+ communities when developing blood and plasma donation policies, screening procedures and staff training. Increased consultation with these communities is desired, and further research specific to the experiences of transgender blood donors is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".