OA3-AM24-ST-27 - Insights from Mixed Methods Analysis of the ADVANCE Study: Appropriate Donation Educational Materials Remain Critical

A sizable majority of respondents reported previous awareness of the then-in place 3-month deferral for disclosing same-sex male sexual contact (3M), but only 20% had known of the deferral for taking PrEP. Fewer than half of respondents agreed that donor deferral policies were “clear and easy to understand,” and over 2/3 endorsed the need for more information/explanation about donation eligibility. Virtually all respondents agreed that timing of last MSM contact should not figure into eligibility criteria; half of the sample believed they could safely donate, regardless of the policy, since blood donations are tested. Nonetheless, over 50% were willing to answer questions about sexual practice in eligibility screening. Responses were not meaningfully different between those who had previously donated and those who hadn’t (Table 1).

Qualitative data added nuance and depth to quantitative results. Most respondents described 3M as discriminatory and unscientific, with some reporting forms of protest. While donation motivations often echoed those of other donors (e.g., prosociality, need for blood), many respondents also explicitly defended noncompliant donations as “safe,” referencing various practices and technologies to support their assessment. This risk calculus reveals divergence between community understandings and the biomedical/technical calculations undergirding deferral policies—particularly around donation screening conducted by blood centers, and the meaning of PrEP vis-à-vis donation. Respondent recommendations for implementing alternate deferral criteria are noted.

Conclusions: In the era of Individual Donor Assessment, these results highlight aspects of donation eligibility and safety about which accessible, science-based communication is warranted. Such efforts may improve awareness of deferral policies and increase engagement among newly eligible donors.