دورية أكاديمية
Validation of a standardized donor health questionnaire across substances of human origin.
| العنوان: | Validation of a standardized donor health questionnaire across substances of human origin. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Sandner S; Research Group on Health Marketing, Institute for Marketing, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany., Merz EM; Research Group on Donor Studies, Department of Donor Medicine Research, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Center for Philanthropic Studies, Department of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., van den Hurk K; Research Group on Donor Studies, Department of Donor Medicine Research, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., van Kraaij M; Research Group on Donor Studies, Department of Donor Medicine Research, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Mikkelsen C; Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark., Ullum H; Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark., Clement M; Research Group on Health Marketing, Institute for Marketing, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. |
| المصدر: | Vox sanguinis [Vox Sang] 2021 Jul; Vol. 116 (6), pp. 645-655. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Dec 16. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Blackwell Science Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0413606 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1423-0410 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00429007 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Vox Sang Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Publication: 2001- : Oxford, UK : Blackwell Science Original Publication: Basel : Karger |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Health Status* , Tissue Donors*, Austria ; Germany ; Humans ; Surveys and Questionnaires |
| مستخلص: | Background and Objectives: A donor health questionnaire (DHQ) aims to ensure the safety of donors and recipients of transfusions or transplantations with blood components, plasma-derived medicinal products, tissues, haematopoietic stem cells and medically assisted reproduction (in short substances of human origin; SoHO). Currently, many different DHQs exist across countries and SoHO. TRANSPOSE (TRANSfusion and transplantation PrOtection and SElection of donors) developed and validated a standardized DHQ to use across countries and SoHO. We tested whether participants understand the questions and provide honest answers. Methods: For the validation of the standardized DHQ, two demographically representative online surveys were conducted in Germany (N = 3329) and Austria (N = 3432). We surveyed whether participants understood each DHQ question and would answer the questions truthfully. We used experimental settings to test whether there is a difference between mode of administration (print vs. online), the order of the questions (subject vs. chronological order), and the positioning of the general state of health question (beginning vs. end) in the DHQ. Using regression models, we tested the DHQ's impact on participant mood after completion and on socially desirable response behaviour. Results: Participants understood the DHQ questions well and would answer them honestly. Nevertheless, the data show different levels of understanding and honesty when responding. Administration mode was the only characteristic that had a significant influence on mood, with the online version resulting in a more favourable mood in comparison to the printed version. Conclusion: The DHQ was well understood and had a low dishonest tendency. Our findings can serve as an impulse for further research on DHQ criteria across other SoHO and countries. (© 2020 The Authors. Vox Sanguinis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Blood Transfusion.) |
| References: | Germain M, Goldman M: Blood donor selection and screening: Strategies to reduce recipient risk. Am J Ther 2002; 9:406-410. Kleinman S, Williams AE: Donor selection procedures: Is it possible to improve them? Trans Med Rev 1998; 12:288-302. Mikkelsen C, Mori G, van Walraven SM, et al.: How donor selection criteria can be evaluated with limited scientific evidence: lessons learned from the TRANSPOSE project. VOX Sang 2020. online first. Paulhus DL: Assessing self-deception and impression management inself-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. University of British Columbia 1988, Vancouver Canada. Wlömert N, Pellenwessel D, Fox JP, et al.: Multidimensional assessment of social desirability bias: An application of multiscale item randomized response theory to measure academic misconduct. J Surv Methodol 2019; 7:365-397. Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D: The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. JMR 2008; 45:633-644. European Commission, CHAFEA Health Programmes Database. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/chafea_pdb/health/projects/738145/summary (last access on September 29 2020). Mann H, Garcia-Rada X, Hornuf L, et al.: Cut from the same cloth: Similarly dishonest individuals across countries. J Cross-Cult Psych 2016; 47:858-874. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54:1063-1070. Lemmens KPH, Abraham C, Hoekstra T, et al.: Why don’t young people volunteer to give blood? An investigation of the correlates of donation intentions among young nondonors. Transfusion 2005; 45:945-955. The Blood Connection: Types of Donations. https://thebloodconnection.org/about-blood/donation/ (last access on September 29 2020). Tourangeau R, Yan T: Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 2007; 133:859-83. Shu LL, Mazar N, Gino F, et al.: Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. PNAS 2012; 109:15197-15200. Sargeant A: Managing donor defection: Why should donors stop giving? New Dir Phil Fund 2001; 32:59-74. Offergeld R, Heiden M: Selecting the right donors - still a challenge: Development of a uniform donor questionnaire in Germany. Transfus Med Hemother 2017; 44:1-8. Houareau C, Deitenbeck R, Sümnig A, et al.: Good feasibility of the new German blood donor questionnaire. Transfus Med Hemother 2017; 44:1-8. Goldman M, Ram SS, Yi QL, et al.: The Canadian donor health assessment questionnaire: Can it be improved? Transfusion 2006; 46:2169-2175. Weidmann C, Müller-Steinhardt M, Schneider S, et al.: Donor satisfaction with a new German blood donor questionnaire and intention of the donor to return to further donations. Transfus Med Hemother 2013; 40:356-361. Orton SL, Virvos VJ, Williams AE: Validation of selected donor-screening questions: Structure, content, and comprehension. Transfusion 2000; 40:1407-1413. Sümnig A, Lembcke H, Weber H, et al.: Evaluation of a new German blood donor questionnaire. Vox Sang 2014; 106:55-60. Öhrner C, Kvist M: How do blood donors interpret the Swedish donor history questionnaire? ISBT Sci Ser 2018; 13:123-130. O’Brien S, Ram SS, Vamvakas EC, et al.: The Canadian blood donor health assessment questionnaire: Lessons from history, application of cognitive science principles, and recommendations for change. Transfus Med Rev 2007; 21:205-222. Rugege-Hakiza SE, Glynn SA, Hutching ST, et al.: Do blood donors read and understand screening educational materials? Transfusion 2003; 43:1075-1083. O’Brien S, Osmond L, Choquet K, et al.: Donor attention to reading materials. Vox Sang 2015; 109:336-342. Clement M, Sandner S: Blood safety considerations in the developing world-the problem of social desirability biases. Transfusion 2020; 60:225-226. |
| معلومات مُعتمدة: | 738145 / TRANSPOSE European Commission |
| فهرسة مساهمة: | Keywords: donor health management; social desirability; standardized questionnaire |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20201216 Date Completed: 20211006 Latest Revision: 20211006 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20231215 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/vox.13054 |
| PMID: | 33326613 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder كن أول من يترك تعليقا!