Bengt Liljas, PhD Research Fellow. Department of Economics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Perceptions and preferences of autologous blood donors
Article first published online: 27 FEB 2003
Volume 38, Issue 8, pages 757–763, August 1998
How to Cite
Lee, S.J., Liljas, B., Churchill, W.H., Popovsky, M.A., Stowell, C.P., Cannon, M.E. and Johannesson, M. (1998), Perceptions and preferences of autologous blood donors. Transfusion, 38: 757–763. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1998.38898375515.x
- Issue published online: 27 FEB 2003
- Article first published online: 27 FEB 2003
- Received August 29, 1997; Revised received January 29, 1998; accepted February 4, 1998
BACKGROUND: The public's perception of autologous blood donation and transfusion as a worthwhile alternative to allogeneic blood transfusion increased dramatically with discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus. However, new concerns are being raised about the health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the procedure. As more restrictive guidelines for autologous blood donation evolve, opposition from patients concerned about exposure to allogeneic blood may arise. Physicians' ability to reassure patients and garner their support for more restrictive policies requires an understanding of patients' concerns. The motivations, perceptions, and preferences of patients currently participating in autologous blood donation programs were investigated in this study.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:Results from two questionnaire studies of 647 autologous blood donors are presented. The questionnaires assessed demographics, risk perceptions, preferences, willingness to pay, and reactions to different interventions designed to decrease patient preference for autologous blood donation.
RESULTS:Patients expressed a strong preference for the availability of autologous blood and indicated that they would be willing to pay substantial amounts of money even if the procedure were not covered by insurance. Despite education about the low risks of complications from allogeneic transfusions, an aversion to allogeneic transfusion and a willingness to pay for autologous blood donation persisted. Patients were not reassured by information on better infectious disease testing or physician recommendation against autologous blood donation. CONCLUSION: Patients currently participating in autologous blood donor programs strongly prefer continued access to this procedure, primarily because they remain concerned about the complications of allogeneic transfusions. They may not be significantly reassured despite increasingly rigorous and costly improvements in donor and component screening.