A systematic review and network meta-analysis of incentive- and non-incentive-based interventions for increasing blood donations.
blood collection
donor motivation
donor recruitment
donors
Journal
Vox sanguinis
ISSN: 1423-0410
Titre abrégé: Vox Sang
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0413606
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
11
04
2019
revised:
21
11
2019
accepted:
05
12
2019
pubmed:
12
2
2020
medline:
29
8
2020
entrez:
12
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Blood services are tasked with efficiently maintaining a reliable blood supply, and there has been much debate over the use of incentives to motivate prosocial activities. Thus, it is important to understand the relative effectiveness of interventions for increasing donations. This systematic review used a broad search strategy to identify randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for increasing blood donations. After full-text review, 28 trials from 25 published articles were included. Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available from 27 trials. Monetary incentives were assumed to be equivalent regardless of value, and non-monetary incentives were assumed to be equivalent regardless of type. Non-incentive-based interventions identified included existing practice, letters, telephone calls, questionnaires, and the combination of a letter & telephone call. A network meta-analysis was used to pool the results from identified trials. A subgroup analysis was performed in populations of donors and non-donors as sensitivity analyses. The best performing interventions were letter & telephone call and telephone call-only with odds ratios of 3·08 (95% CI: 1·99, 4·75) and 1·99 (95% CI: 1·47, 2·69) compared to existing practice, respectively. With considerable uncertainty around the pooled effect, we found no evidence that monetary incentives were effective at increasing donations compared to existing practice. Non-monetary incentives were only effective in the donor subgroup. When pooling across modes of interventions, letter & telephone call and telephone call-only are effective at increasing blood donations. The effectiveness of incentives remains unclear with limited, disparate evidence identified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Blood services are tasked with efficiently maintaining a reliable blood supply, and there has been much debate over the use of incentives to motivate prosocial activities. Thus, it is important to understand the relative effectiveness of interventions for increasing donations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
This systematic review used a broad search strategy to identify randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for increasing blood donations. After full-text review, 28 trials from 25 published articles were included. Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available from 27 trials. Monetary incentives were assumed to be equivalent regardless of value, and non-monetary incentives were assumed to be equivalent regardless of type. Non-incentive-based interventions identified included existing practice, letters, telephone calls, questionnaires, and the combination of a letter & telephone call. A network meta-analysis was used to pool the results from identified trials. A subgroup analysis was performed in populations of donors and non-donors as sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The best performing interventions were letter & telephone call and telephone call-only with odds ratios of 3·08 (95% CI: 1·99, 4·75) and 1·99 (95% CI: 1·47, 2·69) compared to existing practice, respectively. With considerable uncertainty around the pooled effect, we found no evidence that monetary incentives were effective at increasing donations compared to existing practice. Non-monetary incentives were only effective in the donor subgroup.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
When pooling across modes of interventions, letter & telephone call and telephone call-only are effective at increasing blood donations. The effectiveness of incentives remains unclear with limited, disparate evidence identified.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
275-287Subventions
Organisme : Monash Business School
ID : PhD Scholarship
Informations de copyright
© 2020 International Society of Blood Transfusion.
Références
WHO: Blood Safety and Availability: fact sheet No. 279; Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2016
Titmuss R: The Gift Relationship. From Human Blood to Social Policy. New York City, NY: New Press, 1970
Culyer A: Ethics and economics in blood-supply. Lancet 1971; 297:602-603
Andreoni J: Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 1990; 100:464-477
Wildman J, Hollingsworth B: Blood donation and the nature of altruism. J Health Econ 2009; 28:492-503
Levine DK: Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev Econ Dynam 1998; 1:593-622
Otto PE, Bolle F: Multiple facets of altruism and their influence on blood donation. J Soc-Econ 2011; 40:558-563
Culyer AJ: Blood and altruism: an economic review: Institute of Social and Economic Research. Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, 1977
Mellström C, Johannesson M: Crowding out in blood donation: was Titmuss right? J Eur Econ Assoc 2008; 6:845-863
Van der Poel C, Seifried E, Schaasberg W: Paying for blood donations: still a risk? Vox Sang 2002; 83:285-293
Glenton C, Scheel IB, Pradhan S, et al.: The female community health volunteer programme in Nepal: decision makers' perceptions of volunteerism, payment and other incentives. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70:1920-1927
Costa-Font J, Jofre-Bonet M, Yen ST: Not all incentives wash out the warm glow: the case of blood donation revisited. Kyklos 2013; 66:529-551
Heyman J, Ariely D: Effort for payment: a tale of two markets. Psychol Sci 2004; 15:787-793
Mortimer D, Ghijben P, Harris A, et al.: Incentive-based and non-incentive-based interventions for increasing blood donation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013
Goette L, Stutzer A, Yavuzcan G, et al.: Free cholesterol testing as a motivation device in blood donations: evidence from field experiments. Transfusion 2009; 49:524-531
Godin G, Vézina-Im L-A, Bélanger-Gravel A, et al.: Efficacy of interventions promoting blood donation: a systematic review. Transfus Med Rev 2012; 26:224-237
Goette L, Stutzer A, Frey BM: Prosocial motivation and blood donations: a survey of the empirical literature. Transfus Med Hemother 2010; 37:149-154
Niza C, Tung B, Marteau TM: Incentivizing blood donation: systematic review and meta-analysis to test Titmuss' hypotheses. Health Psychol 2013; 32:941-949
Bagot KL, Murray AL, Masser BM: How can we improve retention of the first-time donor? A systematic review of the current evidence. Transfus Med Rev 2016; 30:81-91
Chell K, Davison TE, Masser B, et al.: A systematic review of incentives in blood donation. Transfusion 2018; 58:242-254
Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, et al.: Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2017; 15:943-943
Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC, 2017
Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1. 0. Confidence Intervals. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011
Review Manager (RevMan): [Computer Program]. Version 5.3. Cophenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration,2014
Chinn S: A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000; 19:3127-3131
White I: MVMETA Stata module to perform multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Boston College Department of Economics 2017; Statistical Software Components S456970
Slonim R, Wang C, Garbarino E: The market for blood. J Econ Perspect 2014; 28:177-196
United Nations: World Economic Situation and Prospects 2019. New York: United Nations, 2019
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:264-269
Iajya V, Lacetera N, Macis M, et al.: The effects of information, social and financial incentives on voluntary undirected blood donations: evidence from a field experiment in Argentina. Soc Sci Med 2013; 98:214-223
Upton W Altruism, Attribution and Intrinsic Motivation in the Recruitment of Blood Donors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 1974
Ferrari JR, Barone RC, Jason LA, et al.: The effects of a personal phone call prompt on blood donor commitment. J Community Psychol 1985; 13:295-298
Reich P, Roberts P, Laabs N, et al.: A randomized trial of blood donor recruitment strategies. Transfusion 2006; 46:1090-1096
Royse D: Exploring ways to retain first-time volunteer blood donors. Res Soc Work Pract 1999; 9:76-85
Maghsudlu MNS, Hashemi Siahkalroudi S: Effective ways to retain first-time blood donors; 27th Regional Congress of the International Society of Blood Transfusion. Denmark: ISBT, 2017:102
Lacetera N, Macis M, Slonim R: Will there be blood? Incentives and displacement effects in pro-social behavior. Am Econ J: Economic Policy 2012; 4:186-223
Lacetera N, Macis M, Slonim R: Rewarding volunteers: a field experiment. Manage Sci 2014; 60:1107-1129