Validation of a standardized donor health questionnaire across substances of human origin.
donor health management
social desirability
standardized questionnaire
Journal
Vox sanguinis
ISSN: 1423-0410
Titre abrégé: Vox Sang
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0413606
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
revised:
27
11
2020
received:
29
05
2020
accepted:
29
11
2020
pubmed:
17
12
2020
medline:
7
10
2021
entrez:
16
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
645-655Subventions
Organisme : European Commission
ID : 738145 / TRANSPOSE
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Vox Sanguinis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Blood Transfusion.
Références
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