IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v36y2021i4p1207-1222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science in action? A critical view of UK blood donation deferral policy and men who have sex with men

Author

Listed:
  • Temitope Fisayo

Abstract

The rules that govern blood donation vary globally. Some potential blood donors are ineligible for immediate blood donation, and as such are deferred until such time that they become eligible. This practice, the blood donation deferral period, is intended to reduce the risk of blood‐borne infections being transfused into a blood product‐recipient. As blood screening technologies improve, the risk of an infected blood product remaining undetected decreases—and so too have the deferral periods for certain donors. Much has been made of the importance of an evidence‐based, scientific approach to protecting blood product‐recipients. However, these deferrals are controversial. What exactly determines the blood donation deferral period? This article argues that blood donation deferral periods are not merely the result of enacting empirical data. Instead, the deferral periods represent a negotiation between scientific evidence, experts, politically expedient narratives, institutionalised risk aversion, as well as more mundane concerns such as operational feasibility. As a case study, I examine how the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs changed the 12‐month deferral period for blood donation from men who have sex with men to a 3‐month deferral period.

Suggested Citation

  • Temitope Fisayo, 2021. "Science in action? A critical view of UK blood donation deferral policy and men who have sex with men," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1207-1222, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:36:y:2021:i:4:p:1207-1222
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3167
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.3167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timotijevic, Lada & Barnett, Julie & Brown, Kerry & Raats, Monique M. & Shepherd, Richard, 2013. "Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 79-86.
    2. Robert Slonim & Carmen Wang & Ellen Garbarino, 2014. "The Market for Blood," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 177-196, Spring.
    3. Marco Liverani & Benjamin Hawkins & Justin O Parkhurst, 2013. "Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-9, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robaina-Calderín, Lorena & Martín-Santana, Josefa D. & Melián-Alzola, Lucía, 2023. "Prosocial customer in the public sector: A PLS-SEM analysis applied to blood donation (active donors)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Goette, Lorenz & Stutzer, Alois, 2020. "Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 52-74.
    3. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Bruhin, Adrian & Goette, Lorenz & Haenni, Simon & Jiang, Lingqing, 2020. "Spillovers of prosocial motivation: Evidence from an intervention study on blood donors," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    6. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen, 2016. "Market Design for Altruistic Supply: Evidence from the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 9650, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Michael Haylock & Patrick Kampkötter & Mario Macis & Jürgen Sauter & Susanne Seitz & Robert Slonim & Daniel Wiesen & Alexander H. Schmidt, 2022. "Improving the Availability of Unrelated Stem Cell Donors: Evidence from a Major Donor Registry," NBER Working Papers 29857, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ryan Petteway & Mahasin Mujahid & Amani Allen & Rachel Morello-Frosch, 2019. "Towards a People’s Social Epidemiology: Envisioning a More Inclusive and Equitable Future for Social Epi Research and Practice in the 21st Century," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Sun, Tianshu & Lu, Susan Feng & Jin, Ginger Zhe, 2016. "Solving shortage in a priceless market: Insights from blood donation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 149-165.
    10. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Kyung-Eun (Anna) Choi & Lara Lindert & Lara Schlomann & Holger Pfaff, 2022. "“I’ll leave that to the case managers.” Healthcare Service Providers‘ Perceptions of Organizational Readiness for Change in a Randomized Controlled Trial—A Qualitative Analysis Exploring Implementatio," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Takeuchi, Ai & Seki, Erika, 2023. "Coordination and free-riding problems in the provision of multiple public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 95-121.
    13. Edwards, Rachael C. & Kneale, Dylan & Stansfield, Claire & Lester, Sarah, 2024. "What are the mechanisms driving the early stages of embedded researcher interventions? A qualitative process evaluation in English local government," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    14. Stephanie A. Heger & Robert Slonim & Ellen Garbarino & Carmen Wang & Daniel Waller, 2020. "Redesigning the Market for Volunteers: A Donor Registry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3528-3541, August.
    15. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    16. Sara R. Machado, 2020. "Estimating the Blood Supply Elasticity: Evidence from a Universal Scale Benefit Scheme," Papers 2012.01814, arXiv.org.
    17. Jinzhi Bu & Xiting Gong & Xiuli Chao, 2023. "Asymptotic Optimality of Base-Stock Policies for Perishable Inventory Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 846-864, February.
    18. Bergstrom, Ted & Garratt, Rodney & Leo, Greg, 2019. "Let me, or let George? Motives of competing altruists," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 269-283.
    19. Felix Kölle & Simone Quercia & Egon Tripodi, 2023. "Social Preferences under the Shadow of the Future," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 406, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Yew-Kwang NG, 2016. "Extending Economic Analysis to Analyze Policy Issues More Broadly," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:36:y:2021:i:4:p:1207-1222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.