IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i8p4238-d537488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Blood for Blood”? Personal Motives and Deterrents for Blood Donation in the German Population

Author

Listed:
  • Klara Greffin

    (Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Silke Schmidt

    (Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Linda Schönborn

    (Institute for Immunology & Transfusion Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Holger Muehlan

    (Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

Abstract

It is crucial to provide updated knowledge about blood (non-)donors, as it is necessary to design targeted interventions with the aim of retaining blood donors and thus contributing to a functioning health system. This study investigates the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of lifetime blood donation, assessing blood donation intention within the next 12 months and exploring personal motives and deterrents of blood donation qualitatively in the German population. A face-to-face cross-sectional survey with 2531 respondents was conducted, representative of the German population in terms of age, gender, and residency. Closed as well as open questions were asked. Qualitative content analysis was used for coding the qualitative material. Basic descriptive statistics were conducted to address our research questions. More than one-third of the participants reported that they have donated blood at least once in their lifetime. Motives and deterrents were assigned to 10 domains with 50 main categories and 65 sub-categories. The most frequently stated motives for blood donation were “altruism”, “social responsibility”, and “charity”, whereas the most frequently stated deterrents were “health status”, “age”, and “lack of time”. This study provides information to tailor recruitment and reactivation strategies to address donors at different career steps—from non-donor to loyal donor.

Suggested Citation

  • Klara Greffin & Silke Schmidt & Linda Schönborn & Holger Muehlan, 2021. "“Blood for Blood”? Personal Motives and Deterrents for Blood Donation in the German Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-31, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4238-:d:537488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4238/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4238/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joan Costa-Font & Mireia Jofre-Bonet & Steven T. Yen, 2013. "Not All Incentives Wash Out the Warm Glow: The Case of Blood Donation Revisited," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 529-551, November.
    2. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2010. "Do all material incentives for pro-social activities backfire? The response to cash and non-cash incentives for blood donations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 738-748, August.
    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. Vinh Pham, 2021. "Cash, Funeral Benefits or Nothing at All: How to Incentivize Family Consent for Organ Donation," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(2), pages 147-192, July.
    2. Vinh Pham, 2021. "Cash, Funeral Benefits or Nothing at All: How to Incentivize Family Consent for Organ Donation," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(2), pages 147-192, July.
    3. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2011. "Rewarding Altruism? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 17636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    5. Tinglong Dai & Sridhar Tayur, 2022. "Designing AI‐augmented healthcare delivery systems for physician buy‐in and patient acceptance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4443-4451, December.
    6. Mortimer, Duncan & Harris, Anthony & Wijnands, Jasper S. & Stevenson, Mark, 2021. "Persistence or reversal? The micro-effects of time-varying financial penalties," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 72-86.
    7. Christine Exley, 2013. "Incentives for Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Reputations," Discussion Papers 12-022, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    8. Elliott Ash & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2015. "Intrinsic Motivation in Public Service: Theory and Evidence from State Supreme Courts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4).
    9. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.
    10. Ganesh Iyer & Vivek Nandur & David Soberman, 2022. "Vaccine hesitancy and monetary incentives," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Manuela Angelucci & Silvia Prina & Heather Royer & Anya Samek, 2015. "When Incentives Backfire: Spillover Effects in Food Choice," NBER Working Papers 21481, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jingnan Chen & Daniel Houser, 2017. "Promises and lies: can observers detect deception in written messages," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 396-419, June.
    13. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    14. Fang, Xing, 2022. "Why we hide good deeds? The selfless and anonymous donation behavior in crowdfunding," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Joan Costa-Font & Mireia Jofre-Bonet & Steven T. Yen, 2013. "Not All Incentives Wash Out the Warm Glow: The Case of Blood Donation Revisited," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(4), pages 529-551, November.
    16. Minnich, Aljoscha & Rau, Holger A. & Schlüter, Jan, 2020. "The effects of financial and non-financial incentives on the demand for a sustainable DRT system," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 394, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    17. Judd B. Kessler & Alvin E. Roth, 2014. "Don't Take 'No' For An Answer: An Experiment With Actual Organ Donor Registrations," NBER Working Papers 20378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Joan Costa-Font & Caroline Rudisill & Maximilian Salcher-Konrad, 2021. "‘Relative Consent’ or ‘Presumed Consent’? Organ donation attitudes and behaviour," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 5-16, February.
    19. Jennifer Kunz & Stefan Linder, 2012. "Organizational Control and Work Effort -- Another Look at the Interplay of Rewards and Motivation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 591-621, March.
    20. Danijela Vuletic, 2015. "How Effective are Reminders and Frames in Incentivizing Blood Donations," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp554, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4238-:d:537488. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.