Knowledge Related to Blood Donation and Iron, and Willingness to Take Iron Supplements Among Blood Donors in Multiple Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent blood donation can deplete iron stores, increasing the risk of iron deficiency anemia. Postdonation iron supplements may help preserve donor health, but willingness to take supplements likely depends on donor knowledge and confidence. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 5691 whole blood donors from 6 countries (Netherlands, USA, Japan, Finland, Sweden, Germany). Knowledge was assessed using 16 true-or-false statements on 4 blood donation-related topics; confidence by asking if donors were "certain" or "guessing." Willingness to take supplements was assessed using 3 scenarios: to continue donating, when advised by a donor physician, and general iron supplementation rejection. Using logistic regressions, we assessed associations between knowledge, confidence, and willingness to take iron supplements for each scenario, adjusted for sex, age, country, prior supplement use, and trust in the blood service. Most donors exhibited medium to high knowledge and under confidence in that knowledge. Willingness to take supplements was high (80.6%-84.2% across scenarios). Knowledge and confidence were not consistently associated with willingness to take supplements. In contrast, trust in the blood service (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64, P < .001) and prior supplement use (OR = 1.87, P < .001) were strongly associated with willingness when supplements were required to continue donating, with similar effects across other scenarios. Willingness varied across countries, with higher willingness in Nordic countries. These findings suggest that trust-building approaches may be more promising than education-focused strategies, though causal relationships require further research. High acceptance rates suggest that postdonation iron supplementation may be a feasible strategy for donor iron management.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".