Background: Voluntary blood donation among medical laboratory students is influenced by individual and socio-demographic factors such as knowledge, attitudes, and year of study. This study aims to determine the Individual and Socio-demographic factors influencing voluntary blood donation among medical laboratory students at Mildmay Institute of Health Sciences. Methodology: A cross-sectional quantitative study design was used among 100 medical laboratory students selected using stratified sampling. Data were collected using self-administered structured questionnaires and analysed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages. Results: The findings showed that 56 (56%) of respondents agreed that male students are more likely to donate blood, suggesting that gender-related perceptions and cultural beliefs may influence participation, while 32 (32%) reported no difference. 68 (68%) identified students above 22 years and those from urban areas as more likely to donate blood, whereas 8 (8%) reported that students from rural areas were more likely to donate. 52 (52%) agreed that higher socio-economic status combined with religion influences blood donation, while 22 (22%) reported no effect. 74 (74%) agreed that knowledge does not always translate into practice, compared with 26 (26%) who disagreed. The main barrier to blood donation was fear of weakness, reported by 58 (58%) of respondents, followed by lack of interest at 16 (16%) and transport challenges at 14 (14%). 80 (80%) agreed that trust in the safety of blood donation influences willingness to donate, while 20 (20%) reported having no trust in the safety of the process, highlighting the importance of confidence in blood donation safety. Conclusion: Both individual and socio-demographic factors influence voluntary blood donation among medical laboratory students, with fear of weakness, lack of interest, and limited accessibility being key barriers. Recommendation: The institution should strengthen blood donation education, counselling, awareness campaigns, and regular on-campus donation drives to address barriers and increase student participation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nabaluga et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: