Willingness To Donate Blood During the Summer

Introduction. Each year donation rates fall in the summer months straining blood banks’ capacities to meet local demands. In hopes of identifying factors to increase summer donations, our study investigated donor reported barriers which influence summer donations habits.Methods. An anonymous 16 question survey investigating various donation factors was administered across multiple American Red Cross (ARC) donation centers in Vermont. Questions addressed donor demographics, frequency of blood donation, preference in appointment making modalities including smartphone app use, summer travel habits, willingness to donate during vacation, and factors that deter donors from donating on vacation.Results. A total of 292 surveys were received. Survey respondents across multiple demographic groups cited similar barriers to summer donation, namely “Too busy” (27.5 %) and “Traveling is a time for me to relax.” (30.6 %). Of the respondents who travel in the summer, very few reported donating while traveling (3.4 %). Summer donation rates between summertime travelers (36.5 %) and non-travelers (36.4 %) were essentially equivalent. The most preferred methods of scheduling appointments were via ARC website (45.6 %) and phone (28.4%). Willingness to use the ARC app was highest among respondents ages of 18 to 34 (45-55%) and lowest among ages 55 and older (13-15%). Of respondents with no prior knowledge of summer seasonal shortages (22 %), 2/3rds indicated newfound motivation to donate.Conclusion. Regardless of travel, increasing awareness of summer shortages may increase summer donations. Use of donor websites and smartphone apps may be instrumented as part of recruitment efforts.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1239/thumbnail.jp

A proposal for curriculum content in transfusion medicine and blood banking education in pathology residency programs

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71606/1/j.1537-2995.2007.01417.x.pd

Double Red Blood Cell Donation Eligibility and Interest

Introduction: The process of double RBC donation by apheresis (DRBC), which facilitates the donation of two units of red blood cells (RBC) in a single donation session, was estimated to account for approximately 4% of blood donations in 2005, and is believed to be growing at a rate of 40% per year. Blood shortages in this country could be corrected by converting as few as 10% of current single unit whole blood donors to DRBC donors. Advantages of DRBC donation may include reduction in donor-related exposures in recipients, improved cost-effectiveness of the donation process, and improved convenience for donors. The safety profile of DRBC has been found to be equal to, and in some cases better than that of single unit whole blood donation, especially in young donors (/o). DRBC donors have been shown to restore 92% of RBC volume in 4 weeks without iron supplementation, and to have no significant differences in hemoglobin, serum iron, or ferritin when compared with single unit whole blood donors six months after donation. Our study seeks to quantify the number of current single unit whole blood donors who are both eligible for and interested in DRBC donation.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1031/thumbnail.jp

Factors Identified by Lapsed Donors that Might Influence Donor Return

Introduction: The Burlington Chapter of the American Red Cross estimates that 8,000 donors a year become lapsed, or fail to return for further donation. To better target this population and retain current donors, it is essential to identify reasons for lapsed donation. Several studies have been conducted on the barriers to retaining blood donors, revealing these common factors: past physical reactions, convenience, previous deferrals, lack of awareness, medical reasons, time, satisfaction with the experience, too impersonal, and personal benefit. While many studies have identified reasons for lapsed donation, the majority have not used free text as their data source, have been conducted in a wide range of geographic locations not specific to Vermont residents, and have focused on reasons for discontinuing donations, rather than positive factors. Using free text limits the question bias and eliminates constraints that predefined answers enforce. In 2007, Balderama et alconducted a study identifying common motivations for donating blood, which included an unanalyzed free text portion. We used this free text to answer the question, “What factors identified by lapsed donors might influence donor return?”https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1047/thumbnail.jp

Should 16-Year-Olds Be Allowed to Donate Blood? A Vermont Perspective

Introduction: Supplying adequate blood for transfusions is an ongoing challenge for blood collection agencies. One potential source of increased Whole Blood (WB) supply is among 16-17 year-olds, whose donation rates are still quite low. In 2010, donors aged 16-18 years-old provided 14% of all WB collected by the American Red Cross. Young donors may represent an opportunity to establish a committed, long-term blood donation base as they are more likely to return after first donation and donate at a higher yield rate than older donors. However, younger donors also have higher rates of adverse events during donation. Currently, 38 states allow 16 year-olds to donate blood with parental consent but Vermont is not among them. Our study examines the public’s comfort with 16 year-olds donating blood. As blood donation is a voluntary system, ascertaining the perspective of the general population regarding this issue could contribute to a policy debate surrounding the minimum age of donation.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1065/thumbnail.jp

The Effects of Text Message Reminder on Blood Donor Show Rate

Introduction: Declining blood collection endangers the blood supply at a time when the health care system is requiring an increasingly greater amount of blood products. Blood donation centers are challenged to recruit and develop first-time donors into reliable repeat donors, thereby ensuring a sufficient blood supply. Communication strategies such as e-mail reminders have been shown to be an effective communications tool to promote blood collection. Alternatively, Text Messaging has been shown effective in primary care and preventative medicine. Text messaging improved patient compliance with a schedule of vaccine dosing, as well as improving patient attendance at outpatient clinics. Additionally, text messaging reminders have been shown to be as effective as phone reminders in increasing patient attendance at outpatient appointments. Finally, text messaging has been shown to be useful for managing self-care such as smoking cessation, monitoring asthmatic symptoms, and diabetes control. We investigated whether offering the use a text message reminder to donors would increase attendance at donation events, demonstrating that text messaging can be an effective tool in maintaining a pool of blood donors.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1008/thumbnail.jp

Simultaneous administration of adjuvant donor bone marrow in pancreas transplant recipients

Objective: The effect of donor bone marrow was evaluated for its potentially favorable effect in the authors' simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplant program. Methods: From July 1994 to January 1999, 177 pancreas transplants were performed, 151 of which were simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplants. All patients received tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids for immunosuppression (azathioprine was used in the first year of the program). Fifty-three simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplant recipients received perioperative unmodified donor bone marrow, 3 to 6 x 108 cells/kg. Results: Overall actuarial survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 98% and 95% (patient), 95% and 87% (kidney), and 86% and 80% (pancreas), respectively. In the adjuvant bone marrow group, 1- and 3-year survival rates were 96% and 91% (patient), 95% and 87% (kidney), and 83% and 83% (pancreas), respectively. For 98 recipients who did not receive bone marrow, survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 100% and 98% (patient), 96% and 86% (kidney), and 87% and 79% (pancreas), respectively. No pancreas allografts were lost after 3 months in bone marrow recipients, and seven in the non-bone marrow recipients were lost to rejection at 0.7, 6.7, 8.8, 14.6, 24.1, 24.3, and 25.5 months. Twenty-two percent of bone marrow patients were steroid-free at 1 year, 45% at 2 years, and 67% at 3 years. Nineteen percent of the non-bone marrow recipients were steroid-free at 1 year, 38% at 2 years, and 45% (p = 0.02) at 3 years. The mean acute cellular rejection rate was 0.94 ± 1.1 in the bone marrow group and 1.57 ± 1.3 (p = 0.003) in the non-bone marrow group (includes borderline rejection and multiple rejections). The level of donor cell chimerism in the peripheral blood of bone marrow patients was at least two logs higher than in controls. Conclusion: In this series, which represents the largest experience with adjuvant bone marrow infusion in pancreas recipients, there was a higher steroid withdrawal rate (p = 0.02), fewer rejection episodes, and no pancreas graft loss after 3 months in bone marrow recipients compared with contemporaneous controls. All pancreas allografts lost to chronic rejection (n = 6) were in the non-bone marrow group. Donor bone marrow administered around the time of surgery may have a protective effect in pancreas transplantation

Human Lin28 forms a high-affinity 1:1 complex with the 106~363 cluster miRNA miR-363

Lin28A is a post-transcriptional regulator of gene expression that interacts with and negatively regulates the biogenesis of let-7 family miRNAs. Recent data suggested that Lin28A also binds the putative tumour suppressor miR-363, a member of the 106~363 cluster of miRNAs. Affinity toward this miRNA and the stoichiometry of the protein-RNA complex are unknown. Characterisation of human Lin28's interaction with RNA has been complicated by difficulties in producing stable RNA-free protein. We have engineered a maltose binding protein fusion with Lin28, which binds let-7 miRNA with a Kd of 54.1 ± 4.2 nM, in agreement with previous data on a murine homologue. We show that human Lin28A binds miR-363 with 1:1 stoichiometry and with similar, if not higher, affinity (Kd = 16.6 ± 1.9 nM). Further analysis suggests that the interaction of the N-terminal cold shock domain of Lin28A with RNA is salt-dependent, supporting a model where the cold shock domain allows the protein to sample RNA substrates through transient electrostatic interactions

Isolated Cervical Dystonia: Diagnosis and Classification

This document presents a consensus on the diagnosis and classification of isolated cervical dystonia (iCD) with a review of proposed terminology. The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Dystonia Study Group convened a panel of experts to review the main clinical and diagnostic issues related to iCD and to arrive at a consensus on diagnostic criteria and classification. These criteria are intended for use in clinical research, but also may be used to guide clinical practice. The benchmark is expert clinical observation and evaluation. The criteria aim to systematize the use of terminology as well as the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by expert and non-expert clinicians. Although motor abnormalities remain central, increasing recognition has been given to nonmotor manifestations, which are incorporated into the current criteria. Three iCD presentations are described in some detail: idiopathic (focal or segmental) iCD, genetic iCD, and acquired iCD. The relationship between iCD and isolated head tremor is also reviewed. Recognition of idiopathic iCD has two levels of certainty, definite or probable, supported by specific diagnostic criteria. Although a probable diagnosis is appropriate for clinical practice, a higher diagnostic level may be required for specific research studies. The consensus retains elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omits aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of iCD expands, these criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate new advances. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society