Blood donor selection is a cornerstone for blood transfusion safety, designed to safeguard the health of both donors and recipients. In the Service du Sang, Belgian Red Cross, French and German-speaking part of Belgium (SFS), health professionals (HPs) are allowed to interview donors on their own after formal qualification. This qualification is afterward evaluated by means of two complementary quality indicators: monitoring of donor health questionnaires (DHQs) and analysis of donor deferral rate. The study aims to evaluate the degree to which both quality indicators may be useful and appropriate tools to evaluate the quality of blood donor selection. An analysis performed on 2016 data showed that noncompliance detected by means of DHQ monitoring seems to be more frequent in HPs who conduct a low number of interviews compared to all HPs as a group (5.67 vs. 3.23%; p < 0.001). Deferral rates are also higher in HPs with a lower activity compared to HPs who interview more donors (14.80 vs. 13.00%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, statistically differences are observed between the type of blood donation venue in terms of the global deferral rate (for instance fixed site vs. schools: 11.9 vs. 19.5%; p < 0.001), and specific reasons for deferral (such as sexual risk behavior and travel in at-risk areas, the differences being highly significant between each category of blood donation venue; p < 0.001). Providing the HPs with feedback on these findings was an opportunity to draw their attention to some aspects of the selection process in order to improve it.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
2%
Other
5
11%
Unknown
24
55%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,199,523
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,368
of 5,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,071
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#39
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
