Transfusion · 2022
How do we decide how representative our donors are for public health surveillance?
Клинический случайПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Brien Sheila F, Drews Steven J, Lewin Antoine, Russell Alton, Davison Katy, Goldman Mindy, International Society for Blood Transfusion, Transfusion Transmitted Infectious Disease Working Party, Surveillance, Risk Assessment & Policy Sub-group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surveillance of blood donors is fundamental to safety of the blood supply. Such data can also be useful for public health policy but tend to be underutilized. When the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, blood centers around the world measured blood donor SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence to inform public health policy. There is now a movement toward blood centers becoming more involved in public health research and surveillance post-pandemic. However, blood donors are a healthy population and not representative of all segments of the general population. In this article, we explain how blood centers can evaluate their donor base to understand which part of the general population they are representative of.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Methodologic approaches for evaluating samples relative to the target population were reviewed. Blood donor data that are available to most blood centers were identified and application to assess representativeness of blood donors was evaluated.
RESULTS: Key aspects of blood donor data to compare with general population data include donor selection criteria, health indicators, geography, and demographics. In some cases, statistical adjustment can improve representativeness.
DISCUSSION: Comparing key blood donor data with corresponding general population data can define the subset of the general population for which a particular blood center's donors may be representative of. We suggest that donors are an ideal convenience population for surveillance of infectious agents which are frequently asymptomatic and main routes of transmission are not deferrable, for studying the natural history of disease in an initially well population, and for vaccination serology surveillance.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Methodologic approaches for evaluating samples relative to the target population were reviewed. Blood donor data that are available to most blood centers were identified and application to assess representativeness of blood donors was evaluated.
RESULTS: Key aspects of blood donor data to compare with general population data include donor selection criteria, health indicators, geography, and demographics. In some cases, statistical adjustment can improve representativeness.
DISCUSSION: Comparing key blood donor data with corresponding general population data can define the subset of the general population for which a particular blood center's donors may be representative of. We suggest that donors are an ideal convenience population for surveillance of infectious agents which are frequently asymptomatic and main routes of transmission are not deferrable, for studying the natural history of disease in an initially well population, and for vaccination serology surveillance.