Factors associated with ambivalence about bone marrow donation among newly recruited unrelated potential donors
ABSTRACT Previous research has indicated that feelings of ambivalence about donation are associated with donors' decisions not to donate and with less positive physical and psychosocial outcomes among donors who donated despite feeling ambivalent. The current study examines the prevalence of ambivalence among newly recruited potential bone marrow donors and identifies factors associated with greater ambivalence.
Using a cross-sectional design, questionnaires were mailed to a stratified random sample of individuals newly recruited to the National Marrow Donor Program registry at 71 local donor centers. A total of 426 new recruits (63%) completed and returned the questionnaire.
Bivariate analyses indicated that multiple recruitment experience and donor perception variables were significantly associated with ambivalence. Multivariate analysis revealed that the following eight variables were uniquely associated with higher levels of ambivalence after adjusting for the effects of other key indicators: participating in other volunteer activities, joining at a drive for a specific patient, perceiving the recruitment staff as less informative, being discouraged from joining by others, not having an intrinsic commitment to donate, being encouraged by one's culture or religion to join, believing there are risks to donation, and having a greater number of medical, work, and family concerns about donation.
Potential donors who are motivated by an intrinsic commitment to donate, rather than extrinsic pressure, are less ambivalent about donating. In addition, recruitment staff have a potentially critical role in reducing ambivalence among new recruits by providing information that may allay any unrealistic concerns recruits may have about the medical risks and impact of donation on work and family.
SourceAvailable from: scielo.br[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The development of bone marrow transplantation (BMT) in the last decades allowed the treatment of diseases which were invariably deadly beforehand. Among the types of transplantations recently accomplished, the allogenic demands the active participation of a member of the family, usually the brother, who donates the bone marrow. The aim of the present study is to analyze the psychological repercussions of this donation in the related donors. The sample was composed of ten subjects, linked to the Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation of the HCFMRP-USP. The applied instruments were: interview script, scales e projective techniques. The results demonstrate that the level of anxiety of the subjects is the expected, but stress symptoms also appear. The individuals stated they felt anxious, painful and worried the day after the donation, but they believe that the donation was much easier than they had expected. Finally, in relation to the data of the projective techniques, higher levels of emotional susceptibility, sugestionability and dependence were detected.09/2007; 27(3):430-445. DOI:10.1590/S1414-98932007000300006
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Donation of haematopoietic stem cells, either through BM or PBSC collection, is a generally safe procedure for healthy donors although adverse reactions are a definite risk. The invaluable source of donation and its central role in transplantation implies that every effort should be made to alleviate possible difficulties the donor encounters. The physical and psychological reactions to donation have been established for some time, but less is known about the factors that are associated with a poorer donation experience. In this article, we provide an overview of the physical and psychological donation experience and focus attention on demographic, physical and psychological factors that may influence this donation experience. Understanding that toxicity profiles vary with certain donor characteristics is crucial as this knowledge could influence practice in numerous ways including the modification of joining and recruitment policies and the improvement of supportive measures and donor follow-up procedures. Although this review deals with both unrelated and related donors (RDs), there is a relative paucity of regulation of RD care and we call for more attention to this area. Owing to the relative rarity of donation in each country, a global effort to collect donor outcome data is needed.Bone Marrow Transplantation advance online publication, 27 January 2014; doi:10.1038/bmt.2013.227.Bone marrow transplantation 01/2014; DOI:10.1038/bmt.2013.227 · 3.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: To obtain a better understanding of factors affecting blood and blood stem cell donation behavior in Switzerland, a series of studies has been performed. In the recent study of this series, which is described here, motivators and barriers in the field of blood and blood stem cell donation were identified. Methods: Web-based survey data from a non-random sample of the Swiss population 2012/2013 (n = 3,153) were used to describe and compare the ranking of motives and obstacles to donate blood and to enroll on the Swiss blood stem cell registry. Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Spearman’s rank correlations were used to assess differences and associations between ranks and groups. Results: The prospect of saving lives and solidarity were the top two motives to donate blood or to enroll on the blood stem cell registry.The top two obstacles to enroll on the blood stem cell registry were lack of general information on blood stem cell donation and on its risks, whereas the top two obstacles to donate blood were the lack of information where and when to donate and deferral of or exclusion from blood donation. Conclusion: Classical altruistic motives are top drivers for giving blood as well as registering for blood stem cell donation. Recruitment campaigns should focus on these motivators. Similarities in motivational factors as well as in obstacles regarding blood and blood stem cell donation can be found.Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy 07/2014; 41(4):264-272. DOI:10.1159/000365457 · 2.01 Impact Factor