Assessing unintentional creation of bias against men who have sex with men as a function of exposure to blood donor screening questionnaire: A national randomized controlled trial

Stigmatizing deferrals disproportionally reduce donor return rates: Evidence from Brazil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Prior research has shown that temporary deferrals negatively influence donor return rates, but it remains unknown the extent to which these effects vary across reasons for deferral. We investigate whether deferrals differ in their degree of perceived stigmatization and, if so, how being deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons affects subsequent donation behaviour.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined whether reasons for deferral vary on their perceived level of stigmatization through an online survey (n = 400). Furthermore, we used a dataset encompassing 25 years of donation records from the state-run blood collection agency (BCA) from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to investigate how stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons for deferral affected return rates of 82,648 donors over a 60-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

Being deferred for sex- and drug-related reasons was perceived as much more stigmatizing than other reasons for deferral (odds ratio = 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.33-4.25). Controlling for multiple observables, prospective donors were less likely to return to the BCA when deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.93).

CONCLUSION

Donors perceive deferrals motivated by sex- and drug-related reasons as particularly stigmatizing, which is negatively associated with donor return rates. BCAs may want to pay special attention when communicating stigmatizing reasons for deferral to prospective donors.

Qualitative analysis of Canadian blood and plasma donors' views on expanding donor screening eligibility for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

In many countries, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) continue to be screened based on their sex or gender and the sex or gender of their sexual partner. However, there is growing support that screening based on specific sexual behaviors that pose risk of transfusion transmissible infection is a better approach to donor screening.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This paper reports results from Phase 1 (qualitative) of a mixed-methods study on Canadian blood and plasma donors' views on expanding eligibility for gbMSM by changing to sexual behavior-based screening. Semistructured interview data with 40 donors (whole blood = 20, plasma = 20; male = 21, female = 18, nonbinary = 1; mean age = 46.2; 10% participation rate) in Canada were analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

All participants, except one, supported the change as they anticipated that at least one of three outcomes would be achieved: increasing blood supply, enhancing equity, and improving or maintaining the safety of blood supply. One donor who was more skeptical of the change questioned the scientific evidence for the change and indicated mistrust of state institutions. The discussion considers implications for blood operators' communication strategies that can be used to reduce donor discomfort with the changes to donor screening.

CONCLUSION

In a nonrandom, purposive sample of 40 Canadian blood and plasma donors, most participants held favorable views regarding expanding the eligibility of gbMSM donors based on sexual risk behavior. Understanding donors' views on increasing eligibility may inform Canadian Blood Services and other blood operators as they develop their communications plans.

Evolving the gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men time-based deferral to sexual risk screening for all donors: The contribution of Canadian research programmes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In Canada, the time deferral for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to donate blood has gradually decreased. In September 2022, this deferral was replaced with sexual behaviour-based screening for all donors. We investigate how data from targeted research programmes addressed knowledge gaps to support this change.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review describing the Canadian literature available before the research programmes relating to (1) behavioural indicators of HIV risk and (2) attitudes to blood donation among gbMSM, current donors and the general population. We summarize the targeted research programmes, their outputs and impact to date.

RESULTS

For question 1, five projects met inclusion criteria. For question 2, three articles met inclusion criteria. Knowledge gaps identified were insufficient evidence of HIV incidence in gbMSM who met other donor eligibility criteria and scant data on opinions and views of blood donation and screening criteria for sexual risk behaviours. The research programmes funded 19 projects at 11 different research sites involving over 100 individual researchers/collaborators resulting in 19 peer-reviewed publications to date. Leveraging existing gbMSM cohorts yielded relevant HIV incidence data to inform safety modelling studies. Findings indicated that sexual behaviour-based screening was acceptable to gbMSM and donors, and donor discomfort around specific questions could be mitigated with clear explanations.

CONCLUSION

Targeted research programmes filled critical knowledge gaps and informed a change to gender-neutral, sexual behaviour-based screening for all donors. Findings supported successful implementation of these changes with research-informed staff training.

Alternatives to blood donor deferral of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: Acceptability of screening the sexual risk behavior of all blood donors

BACKGROUND

Blood operators screen donors to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs). Many are evolving screening procedures from those that defer all who have had a sexual interaction with gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) to an approach that assesses individual donors' recent sexual risk behavior with any partner.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A representative sample of current blood donors (N = 1194) was recruited online and randomized to complete either the existing (at the time of the study) Canadian Blood Services' donor questionnaire (DQ) that screens out those with recent gbMSM sexual experience, a modified donor questionnaire (MDQ) that assesses individuals' recent sexual behavior with any partner, or an MDQ that assesses individual sexual behavior with any partner and explains why these questions are asked. Respondents were asked for their perceptions concerning difficulty, comfort, and acceptability of these screening questionnaires.

RESULTS

Across experimental conditions, current donors regarded screening questionnaire difficulty to be low; discomfort in responding was minimal; screening questionnaires were perceived to be relatively inoffensive and justified, and very few donors would cease donating if the screening questionnaire they responded to became the one in general use. Some minor sex differences were observed, and in some cases, perceptions of the MDQ with explanation were somewhat more positive than those of the DQ and MDQ without explanation.

DISCUSSION

An individual risk behavior screening approach appears to be acceptable to current blood donors as an alternative to screening out all who have recently engaged in gbMSM sexual interactions.