Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40354650›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025

Boosting Blood Donations Through Facebook Engagement: Randomized Controlled Field Trial.

Steven Ramondt, Peter Kerkhof, Eva-Maria Merz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Steven RamondtDepartment of Donor Medicine Research, Sanquin Research Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6794-6894
Peter KerkhofDepartment of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2700-2204
Eva-Maria MerzDepartment of Donor Medicine Research, Sanquin Research Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5567-7041

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media platforms have shown considerable potential in shaping behaviors and have become a central component of public health and organizational outreach efforts. Blood collection agencies increasingly rely on social media not only for donor recruitment and retention but also for promoting donation-related behaviors. Regular, day-to-day status updates form a significant part of the communication strategies implemented by blood banks.

objectiveDespite social media's promise as a tool for behavior change, evidence supporting the persuasive effects of routine day-to-day status updates remains limited-not only within the context of blood donation but also across broader health domains. To address this gap, we examine long-term attitudinal and behavioral outcomes to understand better the impact of an organization's social media efforts on health-related behaviors.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled field trial to investigate the effects of a blood bank's Facebook page on donation attitudes and behavior. All newly registered blood donors were invited to participate, and a total of 1891 participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group. Participants were randomly assigned to either follow a blood bank's Facebook page or not. The study used a 2 (new Facebook followers vs non-Facebook followers) × 2 (premeasure vs postmeasure) mixed design, with an additional observational arm consisting of current Facebook followers (n=415). Outcomes were measured at 2 and 12 months following participation, incorporating both between- and within-participant comparisons.

resultsAfter 1 year, no significant interaction effects (group × time) were found for any of the attitudinal variables, including attitudes toward blood donation, intention to donate, attitudes toward the blood bank, perceived warmth and competence, contemplation of donorship, or contemplation of the blood bank. The experimental group was 32% more likely to have made a first donation (odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.73) compared with the control group. Additionally, the experimental group made 12% more whole blood donations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.24) and 17% more total donations (IRR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.28) after 1 year than the control. No significant effects were observed for the observational group compared with the control group in terms of either whole blood donations or the total number of donations. Women were significantly more likely to donate more frequently (IRR 1.97, 95% CI 1.80-2.16) and less likely to discontinue their donor career (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.72). Furthermore, older participants were slightly more likely to donate (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02).

conclusionsOur study provides initial evidence that regular engagement with a Facebook page can positively influence behavior in ways that offer meaningful benefits to organizations, including blood banks. While attitudinal effects appear limited, our findings demonstrate that social media efforts can nonetheless drive significant behavioral outcomes. Finally, we offer practical insights and actionable recommendations that blood banks and similar organizations can adopt to replicate these results and encourage prosocial behavior.

trial registrationOSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/2QGSU; https://osf.io/2qgsu.

Indexed as

Blood DonorsSocial MediaAdultBlood DonationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedbehaviorblood banksblood donationblood donation attitudes and behaviorFacebookFacebook interventionpromotionpublic healthrandomized controlled trialsocial media

Identifiers

PMID40354650
PMCPMC12107197

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.