4.2 Article

A typology of strategies that recognize, reward, and incentivize blood donation

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 62, 期 10, 页码 2077-2085

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.17053

关键词

blood donation; incentives; reward; typology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study validated a RRI typology based on distinctions between the level of congruency with blood donation, visibility of acknowledgment, benefits provided, and reinforcement schedule. A six-factor solution was most consistent with theoretical underpinnings and provides a standardized framework to assist BCAs in developing successful RRI policies.
Background Blood collection agencies (BCAs) worldwide are continuously looking to improve recognition, reward, and incentive (RRI) policies to optimize the recruitment and retention of blood donors. However, given the inconsistent categorization and variety of strategies available, there is a need for a theoretically informed and empirically supported framework to guide RRI research and policy development. Study Design and Methods Survey data from 1028 voluntary nonremunerated whole blood and plasma donors in Australia was used to validate a theorized RRI typology based on distinctions between the level of congruency with the act of donating blood (congruent vs. incongruent), visibility of acknowledgment (public vs. private), benefits provided (self vs. other), and likely reinforcement schedule (fixed vs. variable). Results A six-factor solution met all statistical criteria and was most consistent with a priori theoretical underpinnings. The factors were labeled (i) deal promotion, (ii) loyalty program, (iii) BCA token, (iv) health check, (v) charity donation, and (vi) travel compensation. Discussion This typology provides researchers with a standardized theoretical and conceptual framework to organize and synthesize findings from the existing literature and help BCAs develop RRI policies that are likely to be successful. We present a future research agenda across and within the RRI strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据