Incentives for plasma donation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This work provides an overview of the incentives used for plasma donation in Europe and beyond. The overview can provide new ideas to blood establishments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic online search of incentives used and asked national experts to validate the data across all European Union countries as well as other European and non-European countries. We categorized the data into level of incentive (using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics' rungs [2011]) and country. RESULTS: We analysed more than 490 organizations across 26 countries. Our findings reveal different incentives used in these countries. Snacks and pre-donation health checks are commonly provided. In addition, loyalty programmes, small gifts, vouchers, lotteries, travel compensations and time off from work extend the strategic incentive portfolio. Only seven countries offer financial compensation ranging from the equivalent of 10-35€ for European countries. In countries with a decentralized model, where more than one organization collects plasma, we observe that more diversified incentive strategies are generally used, including monetary and non-monetary incentives. In countries with a centralized model, where only one organization is allowed to collect plasma, financial compensation is usually not offered. Centralized plasma collection without financial compensation relies on a wider range of non-monetary incentives than with financial compensation. CONCLUSION: The country group analysis offers valuable insights into the relationship between incentive strategies and the prevailing centralized versus decentralized plasma collection model. This overview provides a broader understanding of incentives used by blood establishments and offers avenues for future practice.

The impact of temporary deferrals on future blood donation behavior across the donor life cycle.

BACKGROUND: Donor retention is essential for blood banks because acquiring new donors is more expensive than retaining existing ones. Previous studies show that the temporary deferral of donors negatively impacts future donation likelihood. In this study, we analyze the impact of temporary deferrals on future donation behavior while correcting for potential endogeneity, depending on the level of donor experience and number of previous deferrals. STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: We use data from more than 123,000 whole blood donors of the Austrian Red Cross over a period of 5.5 years. We estimate logit models to analyze how a deferral affects future donation behavior while controlling for potential selection biases because donors are not deferred randomly. We control for gender, blood type, years since first donation, and number of previous donations and deferrals. We analyze the direct deferral effect, its interaction with donor experience, and the number of previous deferrals. RESULTS: Our results confirm that temporary deferrals hurt future donation behavior. This effect varies with donor experience and the number of previous deferrals. The effect is weaker with a higher number of previous donations and is stronger with a higher number of previous deferrals. The results suggest that donors learn to cope with deferrals the more they donate. However, the negative effect of deferrals amplifies over time, and each additional deferral decreases donation likelihood. CONCLUSION: Blood banks that seek to overcome the negative effect of deferrals should be aware that this effect varies with donor experience and with the number of previous deferrals. Our results suggest that blood banks should focus on early-stage donors who are deferred because the negative deferral effect is stronger for more experienced donors. At the same time, blood banks should be careful with donor groups who have experienced deferrals in the past because every additional deferral demotivates future donation behavior. Overall, researchers should be careful to correct for endogeneity because our results suggest that ignoring these effects could lead to substantial underestimation of the negative deferral effect.

Healthy donor effect and satisfaction with health: The role of selection effects related to blood donation behavior.

The objective of this paper is to quantify selection effects related to blood donation behavior and their impact on donors' perceived health status. We rely on data from the 2009 and 2010 survey waves of the German socio-economic panel (N = 12,000), including information on health-related, demographic and psychographic factors as well as monetary donation behavior and volunteer work. We propose a propensity score matching approach to control for the healthy donor effect related to the health requirements for active blood donations. We estimate two separate models and quantify selection biases between (1) active and inactive blood donors and (2) active donors and non-donors. Our results reveal that active donors are more satisfied with their health status; after controlling for selection effects, however, the differences become non-significant, revealing selection biases of up to 82% compared with non-donors. These differences also exist between active and inactive donors, but the differences are less distinct. Our methodological approach reveals and quantifies selection biases attributable to the healthy donor effect. These biases are substantial enough to lead to erroneous statistical artifacts, implying that researchers should rigorously control for selection biases when comparing the health outcomes of different blood donor groups.