8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The apheresis platelet donation was increased after a nationwide ban on family/replacement donation in China

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A nationwide ban on family/replacement donation (FRD) went into effect on April 1, 2018 in China. To date, no reports relevant to the trend of plateletpheresis donations before and after a nationwide ban on FRD were found.

          Methods

          We used two independent full samples, consisting of 135,851 and 82,129 plateletpheresis donors from Guangzhou and Chengdu between October 2012 and September 2019, respectively. A pseudo-panel data approach was applied by grouping three time-invariant covariates – gender, blood donation history, and birth year across 14 cross-sections (a 6-month interval each) to form a total of 24 cohort groups (14 × 24 = 336 cohorts, i.e., cells) with each having common covariates. The outcome was average apheresis platelet units per donor in each cell. We performed a two-piecewise linear mixed model with the cross-section (i.e., time) just right before the ban as a time breakpoint (i.e., 11th cross-section) to examine the trend of outcome with the adjustment of three time-invariant covariates. We removed the FRDs in each of the first 11 cross-sections to detect its possible influence on the trend.

          Results

          The final model for the samples from Guangzhou presented a two-piecewise linear trend of the outcome over time with a horizontal line to the left of the breakpoint (β timeBefore11 = 0.0111, p = 0.0976) and a significantly positive linear trend to the right (β timeAfter11 = 0.0404, p < 0.0001). The male donors and the donors with plateletpheresis donation history had an increased baseline outcome and a significant outcome change over time after the ban. Such a two-piecewise linear trend pattern can be replicated using the samples from Chengdu with some minor variations. Removing the FRD before the ban can change the pattern.

          Conclusion

          The significant increase of the average apheresis platelet units per donor over time after the FRD ban may be related to the implement of the FRD ban and the improved donation behavior of male donors and/or donors with platelet donation history after the ban. Our findings may potentially motivate the policymakers in other countries where the FRD for plateletpheresis donation is still legitimate to phase out their FRD strategy and ultimately achieve 100% voluntary plateletpheresis donation.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10819-4.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A general and simple method for obtainingR2from generalized linear mixed-effects models

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Declaración de la Iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): directrices para la comunicación de estudios observacionales

            Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional, pero la información difundida sobre esas investigaciones es a menudo insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus puntos fuertes y débiles para la generalización de sus conclusiones. En el marco de la iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), se formularon recomendaciones sobre lo que debería contener una notificación precisa de un estudio observacional. Decidimos limitar el alcance de las recomendaciones a tres grandes modalidades de estudio: de cohortes, de casos y controles, y transversales. En septiembre de 2004 organizamos un taller de 2 días con metodólogos, investigadores y editores de revistas para elaborar una lista de verificación de distintos puntos. Esta lista fue revisada posteriormente en varias reuniones del grupo de coordinación y en discusiones mantenidas por correo electrónico con los principales participantes en STROBE, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y diversas consideraciones metodológicas. El taller y el posterior proceso iterativo de consulta y revisión desembocaron en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos (la declaración STROBE) que guardan relación con el título, el resumen, la introducción y las secciones de métodos, resultados y discusión de los artículos. Dieciocho puntos son comunes a las 3 modalidades de estudio, y 4 se refieren específicamente a los estudios de cohortes, de casos y controles o transversales. Se ha publicado separadamente un documento de explicación y elaboración al que puede accederse libremente en los sitios web de PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine y Epidemiology. Esperamos que la declaración STROBE contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la publicación de los estudios observacionales.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The blood donation experience: self-reported motives and obstacles for donating blood.

              The aim of the study was to investigate motives for donating blood as well as difficulties and obstacles associated with blood donation as perceived by the donors themselves. Six hundred consecutive blood donors (i.e. all blood donors with a history of at least one previous whole blood donation attending, during nine working days, the Blood Centre of Umeå University Hospital) received a self-administered questionnaire that contained questions aimed at elucidating motives for donating blood (general motives for donating blood, specific motives for the first donation and motives for continuing to be an active blood donor). Questions concerning difficulties and obstacles that had to be overcome in order to continue being a blood donor were also included in the questionnaire. Altogether 531 whole blood donors filled in the questionnaire (88.5%; 322 men and 209 women). No statistically significant differences were found between male and female blood donors concerning general reasons and motives related to donating blood. The most frequently reported reasons for giving blood the first time were 'influence from a friend' (47.2% of donors) and 'request via media' (23.5% of donors). Among general reasons/motives with highest ranking of importance, the most commonly reported motive for donating blood were 'general altruism' (40.3%), 'social responsibility/obligation' (19.7%) and 'influence from friends' (17.9%). General altruism' and 'social responsibility/obligation' were also the most frequent reasons for continuing to donate blood (68.4 and 16.0%, respectively). The most commonly reported obstacle to becoming a regular blood donor was 'laziness' (19.1%) followed by 'fear of needles' (10.5%). Altruism was the most common general motive for donating blood and also for continuing to be an active blood donor. Yet, for the first blood donation, direct 'influence from friends/relatives', 'media appeal' and other types of recruitment were more commonly reported as reasons or motives for donating blood than altruism. The findings support the notion that different strategies should be used/adopted to get people to donate blood the first time (e.g. recruitment through other blood donors using, for example, the 'bring a friend along' method) and to retain these subjects as active blood donors (e.g. by information and by strengthening their sense of being a blood donor or their self-efficacy etc.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                zhoug@msu.edu
                fuyongshui1969@yahoo.com
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                29 April 2021
                29 April 2021
                2021
                : 21
                : 819
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.418339.4, Guangzhou Blood Center, ; 31 Lu Yuan Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong China
                [2 ]GRID grid.17088.36, ISNI 0000 0001 2150 1785, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI), , Michigan State University, ; 909 Wilson Road Suite B500, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
                [3 ]Chengdu Blood Center, Chengdu, Sichuan China
                [4 ]GRID grid.284723.8, ISNI 0000 0000 8877 7471, School of Laboratory Medicine and Biotechnology, , Southern Medical University, ; Guangzhou, Guangdong China
                Article
                10819
                10.1186/s12889-021-10819-4
                8082857
                33926409
                13215427-c30e-4a68-88e4-67e71a867afd
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 17 November 2020
                : 7 April 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Public health
                plateletpheresis donation,ban on family/replacement donation,pseudo-panel data approach,piecewise linear mixed model

                Comments

                Comment on this article