See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion
University of Roma Tre
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4976-9123
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background. The paper aims to understand the main antecedents related to the blood donation propensity related to both donors and non-donors. With our research, we will analyse the two perspectives to identify similarities and differences concentrating on the Italian context. Blood is a vital resource that strongly affects every national healthcare system's efficacy and sustainability and the system's ability to achieve the goal of universal coverage.
Methods. The purpose of this paper is to understand the main antecedents of citizens' blood donation intention and the propensity to encourage communication about blood donation among both donors and non-donors. The Theory of Planned Behaviour is adopted as a theoretical lens. An empirical investigation was performed in Italy, adopting a mixed methods research design. First, a qualitative analysis was carried out through 30 in-depth interviews. Then, a survey was used to quantitatively investigate the intention to donate among both donors (N=173) and non-donors (N=87). A conceptual model was developed and tested through Structural Equation Modelling, developing a multi-group approach.
Results. The present study confirms the relations proposed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, even though some differences between the two groups are shown. The construct Information and Communication is crucial for donors, non-donors, whereas for non-donor inhibitors is vital. Service quality has an impact on the propensity to recommend and communicate the value of blood donation.
Conclusion. This paper reveals the main differences between donor and non-donor perspectives. Fruitful insights for enhancing blood donation awareness are provided.
Keywords
blood donation, Theory of Planned Behaviour, donors, non-donors, antecedents, SEM, WOM
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- annex1Questionnairestructure.docx
Appendix I. In-depth interview topic guide (qualitative survey) Appendix II. Demographic characteristics of the qualitative in-depth interview respondents. Appendix III. Distribution of donors’ respondents in Italy Regions Appendix IV. Residual standardised Variances, Donors (Group A) and Non-donors (Group B)
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Version 3
Posted 12 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 22 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 02 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 29 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 14 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Oct, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 29 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion
University of Roma Tre
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4976-9123
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Version 3
Posted 12 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 22 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 02 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 29 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 14 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Oct, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 29 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 24 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 26 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 25 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Background. The paper aims to understand the main antecedents related to the blood donation propensity related to both donors and non-donors. With our research, we will analyse the two perspectives to identify similarities and differences concentrating on the Italian context. Blood is a vital resource that strongly affects every national healthcare system's efficacy and sustainability and the system's ability to achieve the goal of universal coverage.
Methods. The purpose of this paper is to understand the main antecedents of citizens' blood donation intention and the propensity to encourage communication about blood donation among both donors and non-donors. The Theory of Planned Behaviour is adopted as a theoretical lens. An empirical investigation was performed in Italy, adopting a mixed methods research design. First, a qualitative analysis was carried out through 30 in-depth interviews. Then, a survey was used to quantitatively investigate the intention to donate among both donors (N=173) and non-donors (N=87). A conceptual model was developed and tested through Structural Equation Modelling, developing a multi-group approach.
Results. The present study confirms the relations proposed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, even though some differences between the two groups are shown. The construct Information and Communication is crucial for donors, non-donors, whereas for non-donor inhibitors is vital. Service quality has an impact on the propensity to recommend and communicate the value of blood donation.
Conclusion. This paper reveals the main differences between donor and non-donor perspectives. Fruitful insights for enhancing blood donation awareness are provided.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- annex1Questionnairestructure.docx
Appendix I. In-depth interview topic guide (qualitative survey) Appendix II. Demographic characteristics of the qualitative in-depth interview respondents. Appendix III. Distribution of donors’ respondents in Italy Regions Appendix IV. Residual standardised Variances, Donors (Group A) and Non-donors (Group B)
Loading...