ArticleJournal of health psychology2026
Voluntary and non-remunerated blood donation by 2025? A comparative study of blood donor eligibility in 19 healthcare institutions in Lebanon.
Article in Journal of health psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eligibility criteria in blood donation are essential to protect both donor and recipient health. This study examines variability in donor selection criteria and donor health questionnaires across 19 healthcare institutions in Lebanon amid its transition toward a voluntary and non-remunerated blood donation (VNRD) system. Notable discrepancies were identified across medical, behavioral, demographic, and geographic deferral categories. A comparative analysis against Lebanese Committee for Blood Transfusion guidelines and EU-based standards reveals a lack of centralization and inconsistent adherence to evidence-based practices. Many institutions apply precautionary deferrals not grounded in current science, leading to overly restrictive outcomes. Ethnoracial biases are also evident, with policies that disproportionately exclude migrant groups. These inconsistencies risk confusing donors, reducing trust, and undermining donor retention. The findings highlight the urgent need for standardized, equitable, and medically sound eligibility criteria. This research offers critical insights for policymakers in Lebanon and other countries navigating similar reforms toward sustainable VNRD systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.