Blood donation practice and predictors among university and college students in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the pooled blood donation practice and its predictors among university and college students in Ethiopia. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: , and Q statistic and handled by subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was checked by funnel plot and Egger's test. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 studies that included 9048 students revealed that the pooled estimate of blood donation practice was 26 % (CI: 22, 31). Age of students (POR = 3.22; CI: 1.83, 5.68), faculty (POR = 2.44; CI: 1.74, 3.41), knowledge (POR = 2.89; CI: 1.89, 4.41), and attitude (POR = 1.93; CI: 1.43, 2.62) were found to have a significant association with blood donation practice. Conclusion: The pooled estimate of blood donation practice indicated that only a quarter of university and college students donated blood, which is limited. Therefore, Ethiopian Ministry of Health, regional health bureaus, blood banks, the universities and colleges, the students' council, and other stakeholders shall pay due attention to blood donation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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".