Directed-donor programs may adversely affect autologous donor participation.

Abstract

One hundred autologous whole blood donors (11 men, 89 women; 49 preoperative, 51 prenatal) completed a questionnaire concerning their motivations as autologous donors, their perceptions of the relative safety of blood donor options, and their interest in directed donations. Concern about acquiring AIDS from transfusion was the most prevalent reason for autologous donation. Nearly all participants knew that autologous blood was safer than volunteer blood, and most also believed that directed-donor blood was safer than volunteer blood. Most would have used a directed-donor program if available, particularly if they were ineligible as autologous donors. Furthermore, their interest in directed donations was unaffected by written material, provided pathway through the questionnaire, that included a statement that no scientific evidence exists to support directed donations' being safer than volunteer blood. One donor in five believed that autologous and directed donations were equivalent in safety, and 19 (15 of whom were prenatal donors) indicated that they probably or surely would not have participated in the autologous program if directed donations had been available. This study demonstrates that a sizable proportion of autologous donor candidates might not participate if a directed donation program were available. The unrestricted availability of directed donations may thus contribute to suboptimal use of autologous donor programs.