Cross-sectional study examines how anxiety, affectivity, and self-efficacy affect voluntary blood donation, suggesting ways to enhance donor participation.
AIMS: According to the World Health Organization, voluntary donation constitutes the safest means of fulfilling national blood transfusion requirements. Taking into consideration the importance of voluntary blood donation (VBD), the aim of the research was to examine whether anxiety, affectivity, and self-efficacy are important for VBD. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study included 120 voluntary blood donors. The following clinical scales were used: the Test Anxiety Inventory, Serbian Adaptation of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), Volunteer Function Inventory, and the scale of demotivational factors. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Continuous variables were reported as median and arithmetic mean, whereas categorical variables were reported as numbers and proportions. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The more pronounced self-efficacy and positive affect, the greater the motivation for VBD. Bigger self-efficacy and positive affect was associated with higher number of donations ( r = 0.217, P = 0.017 and r = 0.224, P = 0.000, respectively), while higher score of anxiety and negative affect (NA) was associated with lower number of donations ( r = −0.247, P = 0.007 and r = −0.323, P = 0.0, respectively). Self-efficacy and positive affect were higher in loyal and regular donors compared to new donors ( P = 0.047 and P = 0.015, respectively), while anxiety and NA were significantly lower in loyal and regular donors compared to new donors ( P = 0.021 and P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the psychological characteristics of donors is important in order to take measures to reduce anxiety and NA and to improve self-efficacy and positive affect in order to maintain blood donors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mrdakovic et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: