Word-of-mouth among blood service employees who also donate blood: a qualitative investigation of advantages and challenges for dual-role donors.
Blood donation
Blood service employees
Word-of-mouth
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jun 2024
14 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
27
11
2023
accepted:
06
06
2024
medline:
15
6
2024
pubmed:
15
6
2024
entrez:
14
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite word-of-mouth (WOM) and electronic WOM (eWOM) influencing people's willingness to donate blood, no research has explored this behavior among blood service employees who are also donors. This underexplored segment is highly important, as they are generally committed to both the organization and the cause and are likely more informed on the topic of blood donation than the average donor. This study comprised six online focus groups with 26 Australian Red Cross Lifeblood employees who are also donors. Questions covered a range of blood donation and WOM topics, including when they became blood donors, if they had engaged in WOM about blood donation, what they had talked about and with whom, and what were audience reactions. Thematic analysis was then used to explore how responses related to the employees' motivations, opportunities, and abilities to engage in WOM and eWOM about blood donation. While most employee-donors saw alignment in their employee and donor roles, advocating for blood donation was not considered a necessary part of either role. Educating others about blood donation was a common goal of employee-donor WOM and eWOM, and almost all employees engaged in reactive WOM, triggered by events (e.g., recent donations) or questions about their work. Employee-donors in donor-facing roles (e.g., communications and collections staff) felt more aware of the importance of encouraging others to donate blood and were also more likely to be proactive in their WOM activity. Along with these perceived advantages of having a dual role, employee-donors also identified some disadvantages, such as unrealistic expertise expectations and negative audience responses that can be difficult to navigate. Being an employee-donor is a double-edged sword. For example, increased opportunities to talk about blood donation and access to more information can be offset by having to respond to more challenging questions/comments and expectations, while appropriately representing their employer. More research is needed among those in employee-donor roles within the healthcare and/or non-profit sectors, to determine whether these are issues faced more broadly, and how those in dual roles can be most effectively supported to engage in positive WOM and eWOM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite word-of-mouth (WOM) and electronic WOM (eWOM) influencing people's willingness to donate blood, no research has explored this behavior among blood service employees who are also donors. This underexplored segment is highly important, as they are generally committed to both the organization and the cause and are likely more informed on the topic of blood donation than the average donor.
METHODS
METHODS
This study comprised six online focus groups with 26 Australian Red Cross Lifeblood employees who are also donors. Questions covered a range of blood donation and WOM topics, including when they became blood donors, if they had engaged in WOM about blood donation, what they had talked about and with whom, and what were audience reactions. Thematic analysis was then used to explore how responses related to the employees' motivations, opportunities, and abilities to engage in WOM and eWOM about blood donation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
While most employee-donors saw alignment in their employee and donor roles, advocating for blood donation was not considered a necessary part of either role. Educating others about blood donation was a common goal of employee-donor WOM and eWOM, and almost all employees engaged in reactive WOM, triggered by events (e.g., recent donations) or questions about their work. Employee-donors in donor-facing roles (e.g., communications and collections staff) felt more aware of the importance of encouraging others to donate blood and were also more likely to be proactive in their WOM activity. Along with these perceived advantages of having a dual role, employee-donors also identified some disadvantages, such as unrealistic expertise expectations and negative audience responses that can be difficult to navigate.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Being an employee-donor is a double-edged sword. For example, increased opportunities to talk about blood donation and access to more information can be offset by having to respond to more challenging questions/comments and expectations, while appropriately representing their employer. More research is needed among those in employee-donor roles within the healthcare and/or non-profit sectors, to determine whether these are issues faced more broadly, and how those in dual roles can be most effectively supported to engage in positive WOM and eWOM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38877507
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11181-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11181-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
736Subventions
Organisme : Australian Research Council
ID : LP200301483
Organisme : Australian Research Council
ID : LP200301483
Organisme : Australian Research Council
ID : LP200301483
Organisme : Australian Research Council
ID : LP200301483
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Huete-Alcocer N. A literature review of word of mouth and electronic word of mouth: implications for consumer behavior. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1256.
pubmed: 28790950
pmcid: 5524892
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01256
Martin S. Word-of-mouth in the health care sector: a literature analysis of the current state of research and future perspectives. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark. 2017;14:35–56.
doi: 10.1007/s12208-016-0154-y
Goldenberg J, Libai B, Muller E. Talk of the network: a complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Mark Lett. 2001;12:211–23.
doi: 10.1023/A:1011122126881
Murray KB. A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities. J Mark. 1991;55(1):10–25.
doi: 10.1177/002224299105500102
Guglielmetti Mugion R, Pasca MG, Di Di Pietro L, Renzi MF. Promoting the propensity for blood donation through the understanding of its determinants. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–20.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06134-8
Sweeney J, Payne A, Frow P, Liu D. Customer advocacy: a distinctive form of word of mouth. J Service Res. 2020;23(2):139–55.
doi: 10.1177/1094670519900541
An J, Ngo LV, Chylinski M, Tran Q. Customer advocates with a generous heart. J Serv Mark. 2019;33(2):192–205.
doi: 10.1108/JSM-04-2018-0120
Pauli G, Martin S, Greiling D. The current state of research of word-of-mouth in the health care sector. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark. 2023;20(1):125–48.
doi: 10.1007/s12208-022-00334-6
Williams M, Buttle F. Managing word-of-mouth: a nonprofit case study. J Nonprofit Public Sect Mark. 2013;25(3):284–308.
doi: 10.1080/10495142.2013.816191
Previte J, Russell-Bennett R, Mulcahy R, Hartel C. The role of emotional value for reading and giving eWOM in altruistic services. J Bus Res. 2019;99:157–66.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.030
Abbasi RA, Maqbool O, Mushtaq M, Aljohani NR, Daud A, Alowibdi JS, Shahzad B. Saving lives using social media: analysis of the role of twitter for personal blood donation requests and dissemination. Telematics Inform. 2018;35(4):892–912.
doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.010
Sundermann LM. Share experiences: receiving word of mouth and its effect on relationships with donors. J Serv Mark. 2018;32(3):322–33.
doi: 10.1108/JSM-08-2016-0319
Boenigk S, Sundermann LM, Willems J. Do Differentiated Blood Donor Marketing Campaigns Work? In.; 2015.
Suemnig A, Konerding U, Hron G, Lubenow N, Alpen U, Hoffmann W, Kohlmann T, Greinacher A. Motivational factors for blood donation in first-time donors and repeat donors: a cross‐sectional study in West Pomerania. Transfus Med. 2017;27(6):413–20.
pubmed: 28786224
doi: 10.1111/tme.12450
Oyserman D, Fryberg SA, Yoder N. Identity-based motivation and health. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2007;93(6):1011.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1011
Sümnig A, Feig M, Greinacher A, Thiele T. The role of social media for blood donor motivation and recruitment. Transfusion. 2018;58(10):2257–9.
pubmed: 30203554
doi: 10.1111/trf.14823
Towards 100% Voluntary Blood. Donation- A Global Framework for Action [ http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/publications/9789241599696/en/ . 2010; 1–123].
Burnham TA, Leary RB. Word of mouth opportunity: why recommendation likelihood overestimates positive word of mouth. J Mark Theory Pract. 2018;26(4):368–89.
doi: 10.1080/10696679.2018.1487770
Babić Rosario A, De Valck K, Sotgiu F. Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: what we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. J Acad Mark Sci. 2020;48:422–48.
doi: 10.1007/s11747-019-00706-1
Mazzarol T, Sweeney JC, Soutar GN. Conceptualizing word-of‐mouth activity, triggers and conditions: an exploratory study. Eur J Mark. 2007;41(11/12):1475–94.
doi: 10.1108/03090560710821260
Ferguson RJ, Paulin M, Leiriao E. Loyalty and positive word-of-mouth: patients and hospital personnel as advocates of a customer-centric health care organization. Health Mark Q. 2006;23(3):59–77.
pubmed: 18681199
doi: 10.1080/07359680802086174
Berger J. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future research. J Consumer Psychol. 2014;24(4):586–607.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002
Bechwati NN, Nasr NI. Understanding triggers of offline and online consumer recommendations. J Consumer Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Complaining Behav. 2011;24:59–68.
East R, Hammond K, Lomax W, Robinson H. What is the effect of a recommendation? Mark Rev. 2005;5(2):145–57.
doi: 10.1362/1469347054426186
De Matos CA, Rossi CAV. Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36:578–96.
doi: 10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1
Anderson EW. Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. J Service Res. 1998;1(1):5–17.
doi: 10.1177/109467059800100102
Melián-Alzola L, Martín-Santana JD. Service quality in blood donation: satisfaction, trust and loyalty. Service Bus. 2020;14(1):101–29.
doi: 10.1007/s11628-019-00411-7
Saha S, Bhattacharya J. Analyzing the blood bank service quality from Indian blood donors’ perspective: an empirical evidence. Indian J Community Med. 2019;44(1):58.
pubmed: 30983716
pmcid: 6437788
doi: 10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_237_18
Martin S, Greiling D, Leibetseder N. Effects of word-of-mouth on the behavior of Austrian blood donors: a case study of the Red Cross Blood Donation Service. Health Promot Int. 2019;34(3):429–39.
pubmed: 29253143
doi: 10.1093/heapro/dax086
Chell K, Mortimer G, Dang T, Russell-Bennett R. Understanding contextual determinants of likely online advocacy by millennial donors. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Q 2023:08997640231165913.
Chell K, Russell-Bennett R, Smith G. Encouraging others to donate: The importance of social context for positive word-of-mouth communication. In: World Social Marketing Conference, Sydney, Australia: 2015; 2015.
Chell K, Russell-Bennett R, Mortimer G. Exploring psychological determinants of sharing donor recognition on social networking sites. Int J Nonprofit Voluntary Sect Mark. 2020;25(3):e1666.
doi: 10.1002/nvsm.1666
Lemmens K, Abraham C, Ruiter R, Veldhuizen I, Bos A, Schaalma H. Identifying blood donors willing to help with recruitment. Vox Sang. 2008;95(3):211–7.
pubmed: 18637902
doi: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2008.01079.x
Thelen PD. Internal communicators’ understanding of the definition and importance of employee advocacy. Public Relations Rev. 2020;46(4):101946.
doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101946
Schmidt HJ, Baumgarth C. Strengthening internal brand equity with brand ambassador programs: development and testing of a success factor model. J Brand Manage. 2018;25:250–65.
doi: 10.1057/s41262-018-0101-9
Charbonnier-Voirin A, Poujol JF, Vignolles A. From value congruence to employer brand: impact on organizational identification and word of mouth. Can J Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sci De l’Administration. 2017;34(4):429–37.
doi: 10.1002/cjas.1379
Soens E, Claeys A-S. Can organizations guide employees’ social media behavior? The benefits of incentive rather than restrictive social media guidelines. J Communication Manage. 2021;25(4):454–71.
doi: 10.1108/JCOM-02-2021-0017
Xiong L, King C, Piehler R. That’s not my job: exploring the employee perspective in the development of brand ambassadors. Int J Hospitality Manage. 2013;35:348–59.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.07.009
O’Connor KW, Schmidt GB, Drouin M. Helping workers understand and follow social media policies. Bus Horiz. 2016;59(2):205–11.
doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2015.11.005
Banghart S, Etter M, Stohl C. Organizational boundary regulation through social media policies. Manage Communication Q. 2018;32(3):337–73.
doi: 10.1177/0893318918766405
Benz M. Not for the profit, but for the satisfaction?–Evidence on worker well-being in non‐profit firms. Kyklos. 2005;58(2):155–76.
doi: 10.1111/j.0023-5962.2005.00283.x
Ferguson E, Hill A, Lam M, Reynolds C, Davison K, Lawrence C, Brailsford SR. A typology of blood donor motivations. Transfusion. 2020;60(9):2010–20.
pubmed: 32618010
doi: 10.1111/trf.15913
Taş A, Kiraz EDE. Are future doctors ready to donate blood and encourage blood donation? Transfus Apheres Sci. 2018;57(4):569–72.
doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2018.06.004
Maclnnis DJ, Moorman C, Jaworski BJ. Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. J Mark. 1991;55(4):32–53.
doi: 10.1177/002224299105500403
Weisberg M, Dent E. Meaning or money? Non-profit employee satisfaction. Voluntary Sect Rev. 2016;7(3):293–313.
doi: 10.1332/096278916X14767760873899
Devers KJ. How will we know good qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1153–88.
pubmed: 10591278
pmcid: 1089058
Who. are we [ https://www.lifeblood.com.au/about/our-people .
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847.
doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847
Ozuem W, Willis M, Howell K, Helal G, Ranfagni S, Lancaster G. Effects of online brand communities on millennials’ brand loyalty in the fashion industry. Psychol Mark. 2021;38(5):774–93.
doi: 10.1002/mar.21466
LifeBlood. Australian Red Cross Lifeblood 2022–2023 Annual Report. In.: LifeBlood; 2023.
Shang J, Reed A, Croson R. Identity congruency effects on donations. J Mark Res. 2008;45(3):351–61.
doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.3.351
Bednall TC, Bove LL. Donating blood: a meta-analytic review of self-reported motivators and deterrents. Transfus Med Rev. 2011;25(4):317–34.
pubmed: 21641767
doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.04.005
McManus H, Seed CR, Hoad VC, Kiely P, Kaldor JM, Styles CE, Yang H, Law M, Gosbell IB. Risk of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease transmission by blood transfusion in Australia. Vox Sang. 2022;117(8):1016–26.
pubmed: 35609012
pmcid: 9544957
doi: 10.1111/vox.13290
Waller D, Thijsen A, Garradd A, Hayman J. Donating blood for research: a potential method for enhancing customer satisfaction of permanently deferred blood donors. B Blood Transfus. 2017;15(1):13–9.