Of the 1000 donors surveyed, 884 forms were returned. After excluding 33 incomplete surveys, a total of 851 surveys were evaluable for the study. shows the demographic characteristic of these donors. More than half of the donors were aged 40 or over, and males and females were equally represented. Three-quarters were Caucasian but minorities were well represented, and half had completed a college education. The great majority of subjects were repeat donors and WB donors, with less than 10 percent first-time, plateletpheresis, or autologous donors.
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants (n = 851)
Donors were very satisfied with the overall donation process, as indicated by a mean score of 9.19 (standard deviation [SD], 1.09) with 75 percent giving rankings of 9 or 10 on a scale of 10 (). Donors aged less than 40 years were more satisfied than their older counterparts (p = 0.04), although this may have been confounded by the fact that more younger donors were first-time donors. Women were more satisfied than men with the overall donation process (p < 0.001). There was no difference in satisfaction between white and nonwhite donors. Donors with a college education were less satisfied with the overall donation process compared to less educated donors (p < 0.001). Compared to repeat donors, first-time donors were significantly more satisfied with the overall donation process (p < 0.001), and this appeared to account for most of the apparently higher satisfaction in younger donors in stratified analyses.
Overall donor satisfaction with the donation experience by demographic subgroups. Satisfaction was rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale; percentages of donors reporting each rating are given.
We also examined satisfaction with each step of the donation process. Mean scores on a scale of 10 were 8.93 (SD, 1.38) for the receptionist, 9.08 (SD, 1.16) for the interviewer, 9.24 (SD, 1.09) for customer service by the phlebotomist, and 9.11 (SD, 1.26) for phlebotomy skills. Similar to findings with the overall donation process, donors less than 40 years old, women, and the less educated were more satisfied with the receptionist, donor interview, and customer service of the collections staff than older, male, and more educated donors, respectively (all p < 0.05). Showing a different pattern, phlebotomy skills were rated highly by donors across all demographic subgroups, with the exception that less educated donors ranked phlebotomy skills more highly than more educated donors (p < 0.01). There were no racial differences in satisfaction with various steps of the donation process.
Among repeat donors, current satisfaction was correlated with satisfaction at their last donation experience (p < 0.001; ). Of interest, satisfaction with the current donation tended to be higher than that remembered for the prior donation among these repeat donors.
Fig. 2 Last donation satisfaction predicts satisfaction at current donation among repeat donors (n = 760). Satisfaction with the last donation is noted on the y-axis, and satisfaction with today’s donation is noted on the x-axis, both on a 10-point scale. (more ...)
Among all donors, satisfaction with the current donation process was significantly associated with intent to return for future donation (p = 0.002). Intent to return was strongly associated with repeat donors status (p < 0.0001), but was not significantly associated with age, sex, race, or education, although there was a trend toward higher intent to return among donors aged 40 years or older (p = 0.09) and donors with a college education (p = 0.09). When we examined current satisfaction as predicting intent to return in analyses stratified by these other variables, the association was strong and persistent in repeat donors (p < 0.001). Owing to small numbers, a nonsignificant trend of satisfaction predicting intent to return was observed among first-time donors (p = 0.17), but no difference in the association was seen in other age, sex, race, or education subgroups.
Motivational factors for the current donation were evaluated by the survey with a 5-point Likert scale. In all donors, altruistic motives were rated highly, followed by self-image and health concerns; that is, “Donating is good for my health” (). In contrast, social pressure, media appeals, reaching a targeted donation amount, and incentives were poorly rated. Older donors rated “Donating blood is a duty” more highly than younger donors (p < 0.001) while they rated “I wanted to feel good about myself” marginally less highly than younger donors (p = 0.07). Female donors rated the following more highly than males: “I want to help others” (p = 0.002) and “I saw a media appeal” (p = 0.003); whereas males rated “Donating is good for my health” more highly (p = 0.04). Less educated donors ranked the following motivators more highly than donors with a college education: “I don’t want to disappoint others” (p < 0.0001), “Donating is good for my health” (p < 0.0001), “I saw a media appeal” (p = 0.02), “Receiving a gift or recognition” (p = 0.04), and “I wanted to reach a target number of donations” (p = 0.001). First-time donors rated: “I don’t want to disappoint others” more highly than repeat donors (p = 0.02). Finally, donors at mobile sites ranked the following motivators more highly than donors at fixed sites: “I saw a media appeal” (p = 0.005) and “I was asked to donate at work” (p < 0.001) while donors at fixed sites ranked the following motivator more highly than donors at mobile sites: “I was asked to donate by the blood center” (p < 0.001).
Motivational factors for today’s donation (A) and attractiveness of recruitment incentives (B). Each motivation or incentive was rated on a 5-point Likert scale.
The attractiveness of incentives for future donations was similarly evaluated with a 5-point Likert scale. In contrast with the motivations for current donation, there was much less of a preference gradient among incentives for future donation (). Among all donors, free medical testing (e.g., PSA and cholesterol testing) was most popular and showed no subgroup preference, followed by a tie between frequent donor program, being asked more often, more convenient locations, and donation times. Better phlebotomy, a shorter donor history form, donor incentives, and being thanked more often were not rated as highly. Younger donors rated the following motivators more highly than older donors: “Being thanked more often” (p = 0.03), “Being asked more often” (p < 0.001), “Better phlebotomy” (p < 0.0001), “Incentives (gifts, rewards, recognition)” (p < 0.01), and “More convenient locations” (p = 0.008); older donors wanted a “Shorter donor history form” (p = 0.004). Nonwhite donors rated the following motivators more highly than white donors: “Being thanked more often” (p = 0.05), “Better phlebotomy” (p = 0.0001), “Incentives” (p = 0.05), and “More convenient locations” (p = 0.005). There were no differences in incentives to future donation by education. First-time donors rated “Better phlebotomy” (p = 0.04) and “More convenient locations” (p = 0.005) more highly than repeat donors. Finally donors at mobile sites wanted “More convenient locations” (p < 0.0001) and “More convenient times” (p = 0.002).