The donor health assessment questionnaire: potential for format change and computer-assisted self-interviews to improve donor attention.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian donor health assessment questionnaire (DHAQ) has developed gradually over many years. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the format and method of administration of the DHAQ influences donor attentiveness. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between May 2004 and September 2005, a total of 1,397 donors participated in the study by completing the DHAQ by one of three methods: the current Canadian Blood Services (CBS) format and method of administration, which is partly self-administered and partly interviewer-administered (Method 1); the DHAQ reformatted to the AABB Uniform Donor Health Questionnaire format and self-administered (Method 2); and an audiovisual computer-assisted self-interview (CASI; Method 3). This was followed by a short, scripted interview assessing recall of 17 specific items queried on the DHAQ. Time to completion of the DHAQ and degree of familiarity with computer use were also assessed. RESULTS: The percentages of donors identifying all 17 items correctly were 9.4, 20.9, and 34.8 percent and the mean percentages recall of items were 53.9, 56.0, and 69.8 percent with DHAQ administration Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p < 0.0001). This difference was largely attributable to the poor recall of items queried as part of a list in Method 1. Mean times to complete the DHAQ were 3.1, 3.8, and 8.1 minutes for Methods 1, 2, and 3, respectively. More than 95 percent of donors had used a personal computer in the past year. CONCLUSION: The current format of the Canadian DHAQ is not optimal for donor attention to specific questions asked as part of a list. Attention was improved by use of AABB uniform donor history questionnaire format and was best with use of a CASI format.

The Canadian blood donor health assessment questionnaire: lessons from history, application of cognitive science principles, and recommendations for change.

Over the last 20 years, the Canadian Blood Services' (CBS) Donor Health Assessment Questionnaire (DHAQ), used to screen prospective blood donors to determine their eligibility, has grown in complexity and length. Its growth is inextricably linked to the evolution of the environment within which CBS operates from unregulated collection and distribution of labile blood products to a fully regulated environment and to the need to satisfy both Health Canada and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements. Within this context, the development of the CBS DHAQ has been characterized by addition of questions and items without any periodic reevaluation of the need for retaining existing questions and/or items. In this review, we apply principles from cognitive science relating to how people think when answering questionnaires to the situation of blood donors completing the DHAQ. We show that some items that were added at different times in separate questions, for reasons that were historically relevant, could be now asked more simply with a single question. The historical development of the DHAQ, resulting in the condensing of many items into lists, the use of complex wording, and the sheer number of items included in the questionnaire make accurate retrieval of information from the donor's memory difficult. Thus, we believe that redesigning the DHAQ will improve the quality and accuracy of the donors' answers to screening questions.

The Canadian donor health assessment questionnaire: can it be improved?

BACKGROUND: The donor health assessment questionnaire (DHAQ) plays an important role in ensuring blood safety. The Canadian DHAQ has been developed over many years on an ad hoc basis and has never been evaluated in light of cognitive science principles. In addition, donor attitudes about its mode of administration have not been assessed. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between May and August 2005, a total of 456 donors participated in the study by completing the DHAQ, followed by a short, scripted interview assessing recall (as an indicator of attention to the questions) of 17 specific items queried on the DHAQ and attitudes toward interviewer or self-administration of the DHAQ. RESULTS: Overall, 7.5 percent of donors were able to correctly identify all 17 items. Recall was best for questions asked as individual items (87%-99%) and decreased substantially for items that are part of a list (55%-91%). Position effects were demonstrated, with items at the end of a list being the most frequently forgotten. Twenty percent of repeat donors favored the current practice of interviewer administration of high-risk questions, whereas 80 percent were neutral or favored self-administration. CONCLUSION: The current format of the Canadian DHAQ is not optimal for donor attention to specific questions asked as part of a list. The majority of repeat donors are ready for a change in the method of administration of the DHAQ. Studies on donor recall may help guide evidence-based changes to the DHAQ.

Face-to-face interviewing in predonation screening: lack of effect on detected human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus infections.

BACKGROUND: Predonation screening has become more elaborate over the years, while human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)- and hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donations have declined. The impact of face-to-face interviewing and of the format of the Donor Health Assessment Questionnaire (DHAQ) have not been evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Canadian Blood Services DHAQ records between 1990 and 2004 were examined, and changes in them were tracked. The proportion of first-time donors permanently deferred for HIV or HCV risk, and the HIV and HCV rates per 100,000 donations, were calculated annually. Time-series analysis was used to determine whether major predonation screening changes had any effect on the HIV or HCV rates or permanent deferrals. RESULTS: In 1992, receiving money or drugs for sex was added to the DHAQ; otherwise, the content of high-risk questions changed little between 1990 and 2004. In 1997, the method of administration of the DHAQ changed from donor-completed to face-to-face interviewing for high-risk questions. Permanent deferrals for HIV or HCV risk factors and HIV and HCV rates in first-time donors decreased over this period. The HIV rates were close to 0 before 1997, whereas HCV rates decreased steadily through 2004. There was no interruption in rates in 1997 when the method of administration changed. CONCLUSION: Face-to-face interviewing for high-risk questions had no effect on HIV or HCV rates in first-time donations over 15 years of observation (during the latter 8 of which face-to-face interviewing was in place), and it did not increase permanent deferrals for HIV or HCV risk factors.