4.2 Article

The impact of the context and recruitment materials on nondonors' willingness to donate blood

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 2995-3003

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.13805

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian governments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDAnxiety is a frequently cited barrier to blood donor recruitment. Although the mere presence of donation paraphernalia can heighten anxiety for some individuals, such stimuli are a necessary and unavoidable part of donation. Drawing on France and colleagues' research on tailored donor education and coping materials, the current study assessed whether modifying recruitment materials could improve donor recruitment in a context where anxiety is heightened. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSA field study comprising a 2 (presence or absence of a mobile blood collection unit [MCU]) x 2 (recruitment brochure: standard, coping) between-subjects design was conducted with 922 nondonors who believed themselves eligible to donate blood. In either the presence or absence of the MCU, participants received a standard or modified recruitment brochure modeled on France and colleagues' education and coping materials. Donation anxiety, attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, and intention were assessed, and donation behavior was tracked for 30 days. RESULTSParticipants who were assessed in the presence of the MCU reported heightened anxiety, and female participants reported decreased self-efficacy. The coping brochure improved self-efficacy, heightened the intention to donate in the presence of the MCU, and promoted blood donation behavior relative to the standard brochure. Path analyses supported a model in which, in the presence of the MCU, the coping brochure boosted self-efficacy and led to increased donation intention and behavior. CONCLUSIONSIn a context in which donation-related anxiety is heightened, provision of materials that address prospective donor concerns and suggest coping strategies can bolster self-efficacy and promote recruitment.

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