National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland, United States
Background/Case Studies: Donor recruitment messaging about the importance of blood donation and calls to action such as “save a live” often do not lead to donation behaviour. We evaluated motivators and barriers to allogeneic (unpaid) donations using binding communication amongst our research (paid) donors. Binding communication is the use of preparatory actions combined with a persuasive message to encourage voluntary commitment to a behavior. Counterintuitively, a persuasive message from a “discreditable” source may have a delayed acceptance (Sleeper Effect) and lead to a desired behaviour change.
Study
Design/Methods: Paid research donors at NIH were recruited to participate in the study. Participants completed a pretest of 6 structured questions prior to listening to a persuasive message explaining the importance of allogeneic donations. As their preparatory act, participants recorded a video of themselves encouraging unpaid blood donations, serving as their own “discreditable” source. At 4 weeks and 9 weeks after the interview session, participants were asked whether they had attempted an allogeneic donation.
Results/Findings: From April 15 – May 8, 2025, 30 research donors completed all interview sessions; 60% male, 40% female, age range 21 – 79 years (mean 42 years). During the pretest, 60% (18/30) stated that they knew the difference between research (paid) and allogeneic (unpaid) donations; however, of these, 22.2% (4/18) were unaware that paid donations are not transfused to patients. 50% of the sample reported previous donations for transfusion and 19/30 respondents mentioned a preference for research donations with payment being a major motivator. 13/30 (43.3%) of respondents stated an intention to donate for transfusion but 6 of those 13 never attempted this donation type. 11 respondents never considered voluntary donations before the study pretest.
When asked why they would not consider allogeneic donation, reasons included the need to be financially compensated, and not being asked to donate for transfusion. Although a few respondents reported an allogeneic donation within the last year, most had not donated for transfusion in 3 or 4 years. Accessibility of the donor center was mentioned as a barrier to allogeneic donations, despite the allogeneic donor area being immediately adjacent to the research donor area. Other participants mentioned being unaware of being eligible to donate for transfusion while enrolled in the research donor protocol.
Follow-up information is still being collected to test the effectiveness of the binding process.
Conclusions: Despite access to a donor center, awareness of the need for transfusion, and willingness to engage in the blood donation process, monetary incentives outweighed other assumed motivators for allogeneic donations. Phase 2 must be completed to determine whether binding communication elicits allogeneic donation behaviour in this population.
