Search

BACKGROUND: Historically, minority populations have represented only a small proportion of US blood donors, but recent trends in immigration and potential blood shortages emphasize the need for recruitment strategies to increase minority donations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Donation data from a network of six US blood centers for 2006 were analyzed. Race/ethnicity, country of birth, and educational attainment data were collected specifically for the study and assessed for their influence on donation behavior. Logistic regression was used to determine independent associations with repeat donors status and annual donation frequency. RESULTS: A total of 1,288,998 donations from 729,068 donors were studied; most donors had data on race/ethnicity (97.1%) and country of birth (93.1%). The proportion of minority donors differed by blood center, with African American donors (16%) most common at the Southeastern blood center and Asian (12%), Hispanic (13%), and foreign-born donors (13%) most common at the Northern California blood center. Minority donors and those born in Mexico or Latin America were younger than white donors. Minority and non–US-born donors were less likely than white and US-born donors to be repeat donors (odds ratio [OR], 0.60-0.78), and most were less likely to give two or more annual donations (OR, 0.82-1.11). CONCLUSION: Minority and Mexico/Latin America–born donors represent a younger and often first-time donor population compared to white and US-born donors, but their annual donation frequency was only slightly lower than white and US-born donors. Increasing the retention and donation frequency of minorities will be important for supplementing the blood supply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies preceding the COVID-19 pandemic found that slower time-to-return was associated with first-time, deferred, and mobile drive blood donors. How donor return dynamics changed during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well understood., Methods: We analyzed visits by whole blood donors from 2017 to 2022 in South Africa (SA) and the United States (US) stratified by mobile and fixed environment, first-time and repeat donor status, and pre-COVID19 (before March 2020) and intra-COVID19. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to characterize time-to-return, cumulative incidence functions to analyze switching between donation environments, and Cox proportional hazards models to analyze factors influencing time-to-return., Results: Overall time-to-return was shorter in SA. Pre-COVID19, the proportion of donors returning within a year of becoming eligible was lower for deferred donors in both countries regardless of donation environment and deferral type. Intra-COVID19, the gap between deferred and non-deferred donors widened in the US but narrowed in SA, where efforts to schedule return visits from deferred donors were intensified, particularly for non-hemoglobin-related deferrals. Intra-COVID19, the proportion of donors returning within a year in SA was higher for deferred first-time donors (>81%) than for successful first-time donors (80% at fixed sites; 69% at mobile drives)., Conclusions: The pandemic complicated efforts to recruit new donors and schedule returning visits after completed donations. Concerted efforts to improve time-to-return for deferred donors helped mitigate donation loss in SA during the public health emergency., (© 2024 The Author(s). Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AABB.)

Background: Payments for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are separate from US Medicare bundled payments for dialysis-related services and medications. Our objective was to examine the economic burden for payers when chronic dialysis patients receive outpatient RBC transfusions., Methods: Using Truven Health MarketScan® data (1/1/02-10/31/10) in this retrospective micro-costing economic analysis, we analyzed data from chronic dialysis patients who underwent at least 1 outpatient RBC transfusion who had at least 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to initial dialysis claim and at least 30 days post-transfusion follow-up. A conceptual model of transfusion-associated resource use based on current literature was employed to estimate outpatient RBC transfusion payments. Total payments per RBC transfusion episode included screening/monitoring (within 3 days), blood acquisition/administration (within 2 days), and associated complications (within 3 days for acute events; up to 45 days for chronic events)., Results: A total of 3283 patient transfusion episodes were included; 56.4% were men and 40.9% had Medicare supplemental insurance. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 60.9 (15.0) years, and mean Charlson comorbidity index was 4.3 (2.5). During a mean (SD) follow-up of 495 (474) days, patients had a mean of 2.2 (3.8) outpatient RBC transfusion episodes. Mean/median (SD) total payment per RBC transfusion episode was $854/$427 ($2,060) with 72.1% attributable to blood acquisition and administration payments. Complication payments ranged from mean (SD) $213 ($168) for delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction to $19,466 ($15,424) for congestive heart failure., Conclusions: Payments for outpatient RBC transfusion episodes were driven by blood acquisition and administration payments. While infrequent, transfusion complications increased payments substantially when they occurred.