Factors associated with plasma donation intention and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational literature informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-regression analysis examined behavioural correlates of plasma donation intention and behaviour, employing the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to categorise associated factors. From 53 included studies (n = 3,282,755 participants), we identified 56 unique factors spanning 11 TDF domains. Meta-regression revealed significant correlations between plasma donation intention and six domains, including beliefs about capabilities, social influences, and emotions. Meta-regression of factors associated with behaviour did not identify any significant associations. This review highlights key theoretically informed correlates of plasma donation intention but reveals a lack of evidence on predictors of actual donation behaviour. Addressing this intention–behaviour gap through robust, longitudinal research will be critical to informing effective plasma donation interventions.
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 | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".