ArticleTransfusion2026
The neurodivergent blood donor: Fairness, discrimination, screening, and behavior.
Article in Transfusion, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe broaden the ongoing drive to diversify blood donor panels by proposing and testing a framework to explore neurodivergence and blood donation. Drawing on a range of theoretical perspectives, we predict that neurodivergent people will be underrepresented in donor panels, donate less frequently, perceive donor selection as less fair and more discriminatory, be more likely to guess when answering screening questions, and find these questions upsetting. STUDY DESIGN AND
methods4376 members of the UK general-public and 8668 NHSBT blood donors indicated if they had a formal or self-diagnosis of Autism, ADHD, or Dyslexia. Participants answered online questions about travel and sexual and social behavior from the NHSBT Donation Safety Check (DSC) as if they were donating. For each question, participants indicated whether it was emotionally upsetting, whether it was appropriate and necessary for recipient safety, and whether their answer was a guess/accurate. They also reported their perceived fairness/discrimination in donor selection and their donation frequency. We also assessed outcomes by age, sex, and ethnicity.
resultsReported neurodiverse donors make fewer donations and are underrepresented in donors relative to non-donors (7.6% vs. 13.3%). Neurodivergent donors and non-donors indicated they were more likely to guess, especially on travel questions and are more likely to report that the DSC questions are emotionally upsetting. All neurodivergent respondents (donors and non-donors) report blood donor selection as less fair and more discriminatory. DISCUSSION: Blood services need to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate and attract neurodivergent people to be donors and to ensure recipient safety.
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.