ArticleThe patient2023
Gauging Incentive Values and Expectations (G.I.V.E.) among Blood Donors for Nonmonetary Incentives: Developing a Preference Elicitation Instrument through Qualitative Approaches in Shandong, China.
Article in The patient, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How policymakers value end-of-life treatments for rare and common diseases in China: evidence from a contingent valuation study.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBlood donation rates remain suboptimal in China necessitating the reform of the current nonmonetary incentive system to motivate donors. This study aims to identify relevant attributes and levels for nonmonetary incentives in repeated blood donation and provide insights for the development of preference elicitation instruments.
methodsA qualitative research process was employed, including a literature review, in-depth interviews, attribute ranking, focus group discussions, and cognitive interviews, to identify potential nonmonetary incentives for blood donation. The identified attributes were then incorporated into a discrete choice experiment (DCE) study design. The comprehensibility and acceptability of the DCE questionnaire were assessed through cognitive interviews and a pilot study.
resultsFive nonmonetary incentive attributes were identified, including health examination, designated blood recipient, honor for donation, travel time, and gifts. The designated recipient of blood donation emerged as the most important motivator for future donations among the participants. The cognitive interviews and pilot study provided valuable feedback for refining the DCE questionnaire and ensuring its reliability.
conclusionThis study contributes to the understanding of nonmonetary incentives for blood donation and highlights the importance of designated blood recipients, health examination, honor for donation, travel time, and gifts as potential motivators. Moreover, it emphasizes the value of employing cognitive interviews and pilot studies in the development and refinement of DCE questionnaires, ultimately enhancing the reliability and validity of preference elicitation instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37523066What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.