Attitudes toward blood donation incentives in the United States: implications for donor recruitment

Authors

  • Simone A. Glynn,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Alan E. Williams,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Catharie C. Nass,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • James Bethel,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Debra Kessler,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Edward P. Scott,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Joy Fridey,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Steven H. Kleinman,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • George B. Schreiber,

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    2. American Red Cross Blood Services-Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland;
    3. New York Blood Center, New York, New York;
    4. Lifeblood Mid-South Regional Blood Center, Memphis, Tennessee;
    5. Blood Bank of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, San Bernardino, California.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study

    1. From Westat and Office of Blood Research and Review/CBER/FDA, Rockville, Maryland;
    Search for more papers by this author

  • ABBREVIATIONS:

    PSA = prostate-specific antigen; REDS = Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study; UDR = unreported deferrable risk; WB = whole blood.

  • This work was supported by NHLBI contracts N01-HB-97077 (superseded by N01-HB-47114), -97078, -97079, -97080, -97081, and -97082.

Address reprint requests to: Simone A. Glynn, MD, MSc, MPH, Westat, WB 280, 1441 West Montgomery Ave., Rockville, MD 20850-2062; e-mail: Simoneglynn@westat.com .

Abstract

BACKGROUND : The potential effectiveness of various donation incentive programs may vary by demographics, first-time or repeat status, and collection site.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS : Attitudes toward future incentives were obtained from a 1998 anonymous survey sent to 92,581 US blood donors. Responses (encouraged, discouraged, no difference) to incentives were compared within demographic groups, donations sites, and between first-time and repeat community whole-blood (WB) donors using chi-square tests and logistic regressions adjusted for sample design.

RESULTS : Incentives most likely to encourage donation return among all 45,588 WB respondents were blood credits (61%), cholesterol screening (61%), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening (73% of men). Younger donors (≤25 years old) were 4 to 5 times more likely to be encouraged to donate if offered compensatory incentives (tickets to events, discounts or lottery and/or raffle tickets), gifts, or a token of appreciation than were those donors older than 55. This age effect influenced positive attitudes toward incentives in first-time donors and in donors giving at schools, universities, or military sites. Among all donors, up to 7 to 9 percent reported they would be discouraged to return if offered compensatory incentives.

CONCLUSIONS : Blood credits and cholesterol and PSA screening would be well received at all donation sites. Gifts, compensatory incentives, and tokens of appreciation appeal more to younger donors. These data may allow blood centers to optimize recruitment by tailoring limited incentive resources more effectively.

Ancillary