Sources of attitudes towards parent-child co-sleeping and their effects: A systematic scoping review.

Parent-child co-sleeping is a common practice in many cultures, although in Western countries, families who engage in parent-child co-sleeping can encounter attitudes about co-sleeping that feel critical from the people around them, as it is not commonly accepted and often stigmatized. This systematic scoping review examined and synthesized the available literature on the attitudes about parent-child co-sleeping that people encounter, their origins, and their effect on parents' own attitudes and behaviors. A total of 9796 abstracts were screened, and 33 studies were included. While the scope of the literature on this topic was narrow, this review demonstrated that parents/caregivers mostly encounter encouraging attitudes about co-sleeping from their extended family members and within their culture and discouraging attitudes from healthcare professionals. Findings suggest that encouraging attitudes enhance the likelihood of parents engaging and continuing with co-sleeping behavior, while discouraging attitudes can lead to the avoidance of parents discussing sleep with their healthcare professionals and can cause conflicts with other family members, including partners. Based on these findings, we conclude that further research is needed in several areas related to co-sleeping in Western culture, most specifically in how external attitudes influence the decision to co-sleep, as well as other behaviors and cognitions such as engagement with healthcare professionals, family satisfaction, parental self-efficacy, and overall mental health.

The health impacts of blood donation: a systematic review of donor and non-donor perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The health and well-being of volunteer donors is of critical concern for blood collection agencies responsible for ensuring a stable supply of blood products. However, lay understandings of the impact of donating blood on health remain poorly understood. As lay perceptions are likely to influence critical decisions about donation, understanding these perceptions is key for informing evidence-based approaches to donor retention and recruitment. As such, we conducted a systematic review of the blood donation literature to identify donors' and non-donors' perceptions of the short and longer-term physiological health effects of whole-blood and/or blood product donation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Studies published from January 1995 to February 2021 were included. Perceptions were defined as both experiences and beliefs. Psychological effects were considered outside the scope of the review. RESULTS: A total of 247 studies were included. Most studies (89.5%) had donation-related health perceptions as a background rather than a central (10.5%) focus, and they were only assessed in relation to whole blood donation. More results focused on health-related beliefs than experiences (82 vs 18%), specific rather than general beliefs and experiences (80 vs 20%) and more frequently examined negative than positive beliefs and experiences (83 vs 17%). The most commonly studied and reported specific negative beliefs related to increased risk of infectious disease, reduced vitality, vasovagal reactions and low iron. Most studies examining specific negative beliefs were conducted in Asian countries. DISCUSSION: Findings reinforce that lay perspectives on how donation impacts health are under-researched, and it is difficult to know how important these are in informing critical decisions about donation for donors and non-donors. We suggest that further research with donation-related health beliefs and experiences as the central focus is needed to provide insights to inform communications with donors and the public.

Understanding Mothers' Experiences of Being Ineligible to Donate Their Milk to a Not-for-Profit Milk Bank.

Background: Donor milk banks have strict donor screening criteria to ensure that donor milk is safe for premature or hospitalized babies. Yet little evidence is available to understand how potential donors, who are often breastfeeding their own infants, experience being ineligible ("deferred") to donate their milk to a milk bank. Materials and Methods: Interviews were conducted with 10 mothers who were permanently or temporarily deferred from donating to a large, not-for-profit milk bank in Australia. Interviews focused on becoming a donor and being deferred, meanings of deferral, impact of deferral on feeding own infant, and improving the deferral process. Results: Thematic analysis of interviews identified nine themes: (1) donation as a solution to wasting milk; (2) eligibility questions were acceptable and understandable; (3) more information early on allows self-deferral; (4) deferral is not always clear; (5) deferral is disappointing but does not prevent future donation; (6) deferral did not prevent feeding own infant; (7) early information enables preparation for donation; (8) slow communication disrupts perfect timing to donate; and (9) alternatives to wasting milk. Conclusions: Milk banks have a duty of care to both milk recipients and donors. While mothers who want to donate milk are disappointed by deferrals, clear communication protects their breastfeeding relationships with their own infants. Milk banks can improve their screening processes by providing information up-front and ensuring timely contact with mothers. Mothers can then make informed decisions about donating and not feel as if their milk and resources are "wasted."

"Please help us with important research": A retrospective analysis examining the impact of research invitation and participation on subsequent blood donor behavior.

BACKGROUND: As over-communication can negatively impact consumer behavior, it is important to understand the impact of research communication on donors' future donation behavior. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of (i) being invited to participate in research, and (ii) participating in that research, on future donation behavior. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted with 36,418 donors who were invited to participate in one of 17 research projects, and a matched control group of 36,252 non-invited donors. Poisson regression models were used to examine the associations between invitation or participation in the studies and the likelihood of creating an appointment to donate and attending an appointment at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: Donors were significantly more likely to create an appointment within 14 days of receiving an invitation compared to controls (RR: 1.91, 95% CI 1.81-2.02), and to return to donate at 1 (RR:1.18, 95% CI 1.13-1.24), 3 (RR:1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.13) and 6 (RR:1.11, 95% CI 1.09-1.13) months compared to non-invited controls. Donors who participated in the research were more likely to return than control donors at all time points, while donors who were invited but did not participate were also likely to return more at 1 month (RR:1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.11) and 6 months (RR:1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.5) than non-invited controls. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that research participation is positively associated with future donor behavior and provides reassurance that contacting donors for research does not negatively impact blood collections.

Improving donor retention following a temporary deferral: A cluster randomized controlled trial of deferral educational materials.

BACKGROUND: Providing educational materials to deferred donors has been shown to increase their understanding about their deferral and knowledge about their return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of educational materials in increasing the retention of deferred donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, with the following conditions: (a) Incenter Brochure plus Email; (b) Email Only; (c) Control. The Incenter Brochure plus Email condition also included a guided conversation led by staff at the point of deferral. Donors were followed up for 3 months after their deferral had ended to determine if they had attempted to donate. RESULTS: Compared with the Control condition, donors in the Incenter Brochure plus Email condition had increased odds of return at 3 months after their deferral ended (OR: 1.16; 95% CI 1.00-1.33). Subgroup analysis highlighted that novice (OR: 1.38; 95% CI 1.04-1.83) and established donors (OR: 1.36; 95% CI 1.13-1.64) had increased odds of return if they received the incenter materials. Donors who were deferred to maintain their well-being (OR: 1.28; 95% CI 1.03-1.60) and donors with a prior deferral history (OR: 1.55; 95% CI 1.15-1.55) had increased odds of return if they received the incenter materials. No significant differences were found between the Email Only and Control conditions. DISCUSSION: This trial demonstrates the benefits of providing onsite educational materials to donors at the point of deferral. This is a simple, effective strategy to increase the return behavior of donors within 3 months of their deferral ending.

Designing and testing an ethnic-ancestry question for Australian blood donors: Acceptability, feasibility, and understanding.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and understanding of a donor ethnic-ancestry question with Australian blood donors. BACKGROUND: Ethnic-ancestry assists blood collection agencies to meet the demand for rare blood-types. However, there is no standard ethnicity question used by health/blood services around the world and we do not know how blood donors in Australia will respond to being asked for this information. METHODS/MATERIALS: A survey and ethnic-ancestry question was administered to a sample of donors (n = 506) to evaluate their views on being asked for their ethnic-ancestry, test a comprehensive ethnic-ancestry list, and determine the level of information required by donors. RESULTS: Donors reported being very comfortable providing their ethnic-ancestry and the majority of donors found an ethnic-ancestry option they were happy with (91.3%). Overall donors reported a high level of understanding of why ethnic-ancestry was important to blood donation. However, when provided more information on why ethnic-ancestry is required, donors reported increased understanding. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study demonstrated that it is acceptable and feasible to introduce a comprehensive ethnic-ancestry question for Australian blood donors. We also found that a greater understanding is achieved when a more comprehensive explanation for inclusion of the question is provided.

It is about who you know (and how you help them): Insights from staff and donors about how to recruit and retain a panel of committed anti-D donors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Maintaining a panel of committed anti-D donors is crucial for the production of anti-D immunoglobulin to prevent haemolytic disease of the foetus and newborn. Given low numbers of donors in the Australian panel, there is a need to better understand motivators and barriers specific to anti-D donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to gather perspectives of staff and current anti-D donors in Australia. Focus groups were held with staff involved with the anti-D programme. An asynchronous online discussion forum and interviews were conducted with donors. All data were coded using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Staff stressed the importance of recruiting donors who met their own informal criteria as well as the formal selection criteria in order to maximize the chances of donors committing to making regular plasma donations. In contrast, donors were motivated by having a personal connection to anti-D, the recipient group and being eligible to join the programme. Support from staff and understanding the value of their donations also helped donors overcome concerns about the risks of joining the programme and reduced barriers to remaining in the programme. CONCLUSION: Anti-D donors in Australia are motivated by multiple factors, including knowing who the recipient is, and dedicated staff are integral to building donors' commitment through education and support. Findings suggest the current approach to recruitment could be broadened to include all donors who meet formal selection criteria, with retention enhanced by reinforcing and rewarding the motives identified by donors for donating.

Notifying donors when their deferral is ending: An effective donor retention strategy.

BACKGROUND: The application of a temporary deferral often leads to donor lapse. Contributing factors may be donors not knowing when their deferral ends or not being contacted and asked to return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a reminder message notifying donors that their deferral is coming to an end in increasing donors' postdeferral return rates. We evaluated the optimal time, content, and mode of delivery of the reminder message. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two studies were conducted with deferred donors. Study 1: donors (n = 1676) were randomized to be sent a reminder message at one of three time points (4 weeks before, 1 week before, and 1 week after their deferral ended) or to a no contact control condition. Study 2: donors (n = 1973) were randomized to three message type conditions (emotive email, nonemotive email, nonemotive SMS). Attempted return behavior was extracted (appointments, attendances) at 1 month. RESULTS: In Study 1, being sent the reminder message increased odds of donors attempting to return within 3 months compared with the control group (OR:2.01). Sending the reminder 1 week before the deferral ended was the most effective time point. In Study 2, the nonemotive message increased the odds of attempting to return compared with the emotive message (OR:1.38). No differences were found between email and SMS messages. DISCUSSION: Sending a reminder message to donors when their deferral is coming to an end is a simple, effective, and cost-effective method to retain donors.

Examining knowledge translation in blood donor research: A review of vasovagal reaction literature.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation focuses on the transfer of research findings into policy and practice. To provide insight into the state of knowledge translation in blood donor research, we undertook a rapid review of a key research area in the field with high potential for translation, vasovagal reactions (VVRs). We examined the number and nature of VVR-related studies to determine the availability of research evidence, and mapped the included articles along the research-to-practice trajectory using the Knowledge to Action framework. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles from inception to October 2019 using the terms blood don* AND vasovagal OR faint* OR syncope. RESULTS: A total of 176 articles met our inclusion criteria. Studies relating to VVRs increased substantially from 1942 to 2019, with 84% published in the last 20 years. Articles were predominately observation (non-intervention) studies (117; 66%), followed by intervention (knowledge inquiry) studies (31; 18%) and review (knowledge synthesis) studies (20; 11%). The evidence from intervention research was limited, with 14 strategies tested in 31 studies and often by the same research groups. Only 5 (3%) implementation and evaluation studies were found; all focused on evaluating the effects of a newly introduced intervention on VVR rates through uncontrolled or cross-sectional study designs. DISCUSSION: VVR research is in the early stages of knowledge translation. More intervention research is needed to provide a robust evidence base as well as more published implementation research to share knowledge of translating research into policy and practice.

Educating donors about deferrals through the provision of tailored materials: Findings from a survey of deferred donors.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a temporary deferral has been shown to negatively affect donor retention. One contributing factor for low donor return may be poor understanding of why the deferral has occurred. The aim of this study was to determine whether new educational materials-a brochure, guided conversation, and follow-up email-increased deferred donors' knowledge about their donation eligibility, satisfaction with the deferral process, intention to return, and odds of rebooking another appointment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of the educational materials compared to business as usual deferral procedures: (a) In-center brochure and follow-up email; (b) Email only; (c) Control. A survey was administered to a random sample of trial participants (n = 847). RESULTS: Compared with the control condition, donors in the in-center brochure and email condition were more knowledgeable about the end date of their deferral, and reported higher satisfaction with the deferral information provided, and had fewer questions and/or concerns about the deferral. Similar findings were observed when comparing the email only condition to the in-center brochure and email condition. No differences were found in intention to return. Donors in the in-center brochure plus email condition had increased odds (OR:1.385) of rebooking their next appointment compared to the combined email only and control conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The application of a deferral is often misunderstood by donors. Providing educational materials to donors can increase their understanding and may lead to increased retention of donors through rebooking of subsequent donations.

Thank you for donating: a survey of Australian donors' and nondonors' orientations toward noncash incentives for blood donation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to understand Australian donors' and nondonors' orientations toward 13 noncash incentives for blood and plasma donation and the associations between orientations and intention to donate (nondonors) and subsequent donation (donors). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey of 1028 donors and 1201 nondonors was conducted online and by telephone. Donors were randomly selected from the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood donor panel; nondonors were selected from randomly generated fixed line and mobile telephone numbers across Australia. Incentives were chosen to reflect a wide array of possible noncash incentives that might be introduced by blood donation organizations (BDOs). Differences between donors and nondonors, as well as other subgroups, were investigated. RESULTS: Orientations toward most types of incentives were positive or neutral. No significant differences were observed between incentive orientations for whole blood versus plasma donations. Many subgroup differences were small but statistically significant. There were mostly small, positive, significant associations between nondonors' intention to donate and orientations toward noncash incentives; there were mostly no significant associations between donors' orientations and subsequent donation behaviors. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study suggest that BDOs that wish to trial noncash incentives in voluntary nonremunerative systems can be confident that neither donors nor potential donors will react negatively. They also indicate that BDOs have some flexibility in deciding which incentives to trial.