PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J G Gimble

Publications and source records attributed to J G Gimble.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

Effects of new brochures on blood donor recruitment and retention.

BACKGROUND: Currently, donors may arrive at blood collection sites without prior knowledge of eligibility and deferral criteria. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The effects of distributing newly developed recruitment brochures 2 weeks in advance of blood drives and the provision of brochures on temporary deferral at the taking of health history were examined in four southeastern regional blood collection centers. Twenty-four similar pairs of worksites, with employee-only recruitment, were randomly assigned to a control (C) or experimental (E) group. Information about sponsor recruitment strategies, worksite factors, and first-time, repeat, and temporarily deferred donors was obtained at three collection drives per site over a 1-year period. Drive 1 was used as a baseline. Two weeks before Drives 2 and 3, the recruitment brochures were distributed to all Group E employees, with temporary deferral brochures provided as needed when the health history was taken. RESULTS: No significant differences between groups or drives were found in the total percentage of employees recruited or returning as a result of recruitment or deferral brochure distribution (Wilcoxon's signed rank test and t test). Substantiating previous observations by donor recruiters, the study results showed decreased donations during vacation periods and busier times at the workplace. Loudspeaker announcements led to decreased donations; increased donations followed special appeals in relation to a specific patient, an accident, or a natural disaster. CONCLUSION: The brochures may have encouraged previous donors to return, but their use did not significantly increase the recruitment of new donors or the return of temporarily deferred donors.

Blood Donors↗
PubMed1992

Effects of oral donor questioning about high-risk behaviors for human immunodeficiency virus infection.

The purposes of this study were 1) to compare blood donor deferrals resulting from additional, oral questions about human immunodeficiency virus risk behaviors with deferrals resulting from currently used, written screening questions; 2) to examine differences in donor deferral resulting from use of an indirect (IQ) versus direct (DQ) additional oral question format; and 3) to evaluate written survey responses of donors and staff members to the additional questions. The IQ group (n = 3050) were asked if they understood the seven ineligible-donor risk behaviors, and the DQ group (n = 4753) were asked if they had engaged in any of these behaviors. Owing to positive answers or refusal to answer the additional questions, there was an increase in donor deferrals, over the level seen with customary screening. Only 1 percent of donors indicated they would not return if the questions were asked in the future. Embarrassment was indicated by 3 percent of the IQ group and 7 percent of the DQ group; 14 to 15 percent preferred to write their answers rather than give them orally. The staff members generally felt training was adequate (IQ = 92%, DQ = 83%) and were comfortable asking the questions (IQ = 82%, DQ = 78%). Mean screening times were 5.7 minutes before the addition of the oral questions, 7.5 minutes with IQ, and 7.6 minutes with DQ. This study confirms the value of IQ and DQ formats in identifying potentially infectious donors and suggests that the DQ format may be slightly more effective.

Attitude to Health↗