The consequences of temporary deferral on future whole blood donation
Abstract
Background The consequences of temporary deferral are not well understood. This study sought to investigate blood donor return after deferral expiration. Study design and methods A retrospective cohort analysis of allogeneic whole-blood donation was conducted. All deferred donors and a random sample of eligible donors were identified from the year 2000, with subsequent blood center visits through December 2005 captured. Stratified results are reported as the percentage returning, rates of return, and time to return. Measures of statistical association and Cox regression modeling are reported. Results For first-time (FT) donors, 25 percent of temporarily deferred donors returned during the 5-year follow-up period compared to 47 percent of eligible donors (p Conclusion The effects of deferral were more pronounced than expected, affecting both FT and repeat donors. For FT donors, the type and duration of deferral, while important, were not as relevant as hypothesized because so few returned, suggesting the need to develop appropriate interventions to recapture those donors likely to be eligible.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Any adverse event, even a minor one, will definitely reduce the likelihood of repeat donation.
“Their significance lies in the fact that any adverse event, even a minor one will definitely reduce the likelihood of repeat donation (11,12).”
From ADVERSE EVENTS IN BLOOD DONORS: SPECTRUM AND REMEDY (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spekman, M. L. C., Ramondt, S., & Sweegers, M. G. (2021) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/trf.16235 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
ADVERSE EVENTS IN BLOOD DONORS: SPECTRUM AND REMEDY
Bhushan, R., Gupta, P., Mehra, A., & Iyengar, S. (2023) · PARIPEX-Indian Journal of Research · doi:10.36106/paripex/1800303
- Authors
- Custer, B., Chinn, A., Hirschler, N. V., Busch, M. P., & Murphy, E. L.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Custer, Brian
- Venue
- Transfusion
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05-29
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1514-1523
- ISSN
- 0041-1132 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2995
- OpenAlex
- W2056042724
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 19.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transfusion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Blood donation and transfusion practices
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
- Keywords
- blood donor deferral, temporary deferral, whole blood donation, repeat donors, first-time donors, donor recruitment, blood donor retention
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Blood Donors, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Multivariate Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review