Plasma‐derived product recipients' views on the acceptability of implementing a programme of plasma donation for fractionation from men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over the past few years in Québec, Canada, exclusion criteria for blood donation and plasma donation for fractionation have been modified. Héma-Québec, the institution responsible for blood products, has made changes to allow more inclusive access to blood and plasma donation, in accordance with evolving scientific data concerning donation safety. The study, conducted before those changes were implemented, aimed to assess acceptability of recipients and parents of recipients of plasma-derived products for men who have sex with men (MSM) to become eligible to donate plasma for fractionation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight qualitative interviews (4 focus groups, 4 individual) were conducted with a total of 17 plasma product recipients and parents of children needing plasma-derived products. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants were rather favourable regarding acceptability of MSM as potential donors. Participants viewed this change as necessary and beneficial. They also felt they must rely on trust in Héma-Québec, conferred automatically or by default. However, some participants raised concerns about donation safety and reported feeling helpless regarding inclusion of MSM. The importance of being informed and that recipients' safety be prioritized first and foremost were also mentioned. CONCLUSION: Despite their nuanced attitudes, recipients showed high levels of acceptability of including MSM in plasma donation for fractionation. Actions can be taken to reduce concerns regarding the safety of products received.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".