Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 144
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Blood collection centers are charged with creating donor educational materials (DnEM) that are easily understood across all prospective donor populations, while addressing mandates and recommendations from regulatory agencies and professional standard setting organizations. Donors must have sufficient information to understand the donation process with its risks and benefits, time to consider options before deciding, and opportunity to choose whether to proceed with or decline donating. The goal of this multisite randomized controlled trial was to evaluate knowledge acquired using standardized DnEM. America's Blood Centers' Working Group (WG) for Donor Education and Communication was formed to evaluate and suggest modifications of these documents. Based on pilot work, a randomized clinical trial was designed to test donor knowledge across a variety of populations. The WG identified several shortcomings in the current DnEM and proposed new DnEM. The new DnEM were tested against the same, current DnEM being used at all three sites (Blood Donor Educational Material, 2016 version 2.0, published in conjunction with the AABB uniform donor history questionnaire).
Methods And Materials: One-hundred sixty-five first time and returning donors were randomized in a 2x2 model to review either new DnEM or current DnEM. Every participant completed a pre- and post-quiz that tested their understanding of the DnEM.
Results: Returning donors had greater baseline knowledge compared to new donors, but new donors improved more versus returning donors. Donors using the new DnEM showed greater improvement in knowledge than those using current DnEM.
Conclusion: Comprehension of DnEM can be improved. With this sample size the results suggest that the findings are independent of demographic characteristics, but a larger study would be necessary to confirm this.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.15866 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!