Vox sanguinis · 2015
Donor attention to reading materials.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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 S F, Osmond L, Choquet K, Yi Q-L, Goldman M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mandatory predonation reading materials inform donors about risk factors for transmissible disease, possible complications of donation and changes to the donation process. We aimed to assess the attention to predonation reading materials and factors which may affect attention.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey in 2008 of 18,108 blood donors asked about self-assessed attention to reading the materials. In face-to-face interviews, 441 donors completed additional questions about reading the materials and a literacy test. Qualitative interviews of 27 donors assessed their approach to reading.
RESULTS: In the national survey, most of the first-time donors said they read all or most of the materials (90.9% first-time vs. 57.6% repeat donors, P < 0.001) and 66% vs. 23.1% reported reading them carefully (P < 0.001). In face-to-face interviews comparing those who read materials carefully, skimmed or did not read, most knew that donors are informed of positive transmissible disease test results (97.1%, 95.5, 98.0 P > 0.05), but fewer recalled seeing the definition of sex (77.2%, 56.9, 24.2 P < 0.001). Literacy was poor (30.5% frustration level, 60.3% instructional, 9.2% independent) but similar when those who read materials carefully, skimmed or did not read were compared (P > 0.05). Qualitative interviews showed that donors are reluctant to read any more than necessary and decide based on perceived importance or relevance.
CONCLUSION: Attention to predonation reading materials tends to be better among first-time donors. The effectiveness is limited by low motivation to read, especially for repeat donors, as well as poor literacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national survey in 2008 of 18,108 blood donors asked about self-assessed attention to reading the materials. In face-to-face interviews, 441 donors completed additional questions about reading the materials and a literacy test. Qualitative interviews of 27 donors assessed their approach to reading.
RESULTS: In the national survey, most of the first-time donors said they read all or most of the materials (90.9% first-time vs. 57.6% repeat donors, P < 0.001) and 66% vs. 23.1% reported reading them carefully (P < 0.001). In face-to-face interviews comparing those who read materials carefully, skimmed or did not read, most knew that donors are informed of positive transmissible disease test results (97.1%, 95.5, 98.0 P > 0.05), but fewer recalled seeing the definition of sex (77.2%, 56.9, 24.2 P < 0.001). Literacy was poor (30.5% frustration level, 60.3% instructional, 9.2% independent) but similar when those who read materials carefully, skimmed or did not read were compared (P > 0.05). Qualitative interviews showed that donors are reluctant to read any more than necessary and decide based on perceived importance or relevance.
CONCLUSION: Attention to predonation reading materials tends to be better among first-time donors. The effectiveness is limited by low motivation to read, especially for repeat donors, as well as poor literacy.