IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v36y2021i4p1207-1222.html

Science in action? A critical view of UK blood donation deferral policy and men who have sex with men

Author

Listed:
  • Temitope Fisayo

Abstract

The rules that govern blood donation vary globally. Some potential blood donors are ineligible for immediate blood donation, and as such are deferred until such time that they become eligible. This practice, the blood donation deferral period, is intended to reduce the risk of blood‐borne infections being transfused into a blood product‐recipient. As blood screening technologies improve, the risk of an infected blood product remaining undetected decreases—and so too have the deferral periods for certain donors. Much has been made of the importance of an evidence‐based, scientific approach to protecting blood product‐recipients. However, these deferrals are controversial. What exactly determines the blood donation deferral period? This article argues that blood donation deferral periods are not merely the result of enacting empirical data. Instead, the deferral periods represent a negotiation between scientific evidence, experts, politically expedient narratives, institutionalised risk aversion, as well as more mundane concerns such as operational feasibility. As a case study, I examine how the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs changed the 12‐month deferral period for blood donation from men who have sex with men to a 3‐month deferral period.

Suggested Citation

  • Temitope Fisayo, 2021. "Science in action? A critical view of UK blood donation deferral policy and men who have sex with men," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1207-1222, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:36:y:2021:i:4:p:1207-1222
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3167
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.3167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timotijevic, Lada & Barnett, Julie & Brown, Kerry & Raats, Monique M. & Shepherd, Richard, 2013. "Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 79-86.
    2. Marco Liverani & Benjamin Hawkins & Justin O Parkhurst, 2013. "Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-9, October.
    3. Robert Slonim & Carmen Wang & Ellen Garbarino, 2014. "The Market for Blood," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 177-196, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Felix Kölle & Simone Quercia & Egon Tripodi, 2023. "Social Preferences under the Shadow of the Future," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 406, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Oliver Truffer & Benjamin Hofmann & Eva Lieberherr, 2025. "Salient and contested scientific evidence in debates over sustainable transformation: pesticide policymaking in Switzerland," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Robaina-Calderín, Lorena & Martín-Santana, Josefa D. & Melián-Alzola, Lucía, 2023. "Prosocial customer in the public sector: A PLS-SEM analysis applied to blood donation (active donors)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Takeuchi, Ai & Seki, Erika, 2023. "Coordination and free-riding problems in the provision of multiple public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 95-121.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0192528 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Goette, Lorenz & Stutzer, Alois, 2020. "Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 52-74.
    7. Yew-Kwang NG, 2016. "Extending Economic Analysis to Analyze Policy Issues More Broadly," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    8. Hosseini-Motlagh, Seyyed-Mahdi & Samani, Mohammad Reza Ghatreh & Cheraghi, Sara, 2020. "Robust and stable flexible blood supply chain network design under motivational initiatives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Ashley C. Craig & Ellen Garbarino & Stephanie A. Heger & Robert Slonim, 2017. "Waiting To Give: Stated and Revealed Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3672-3690, November.
    10. Axel Ockenfels & Alvin Roth, 2023. "Consequences of Unpaid Blood Plasma Donations," ECONtribute Policy Brief Series 055, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    11. P Th Houngbo & H L S Coleman & M Zweekhorst & Tj De Cock Buning & D Medenou & J F G Bunders, 2017. "A Model for Good Governance of Healthcare Technology Management in the Public Sector: Learning from Evidence-Informed Policy Development and Implementation in Benin," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    12. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    13. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    14. Ashwin Aravindakshan & Olivier Rubel & Oliver Rutz, 2015. "Managing Blood Donations with Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 269-280, March.
    15. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen, 2016. "Market Design for Altruistic Supply: Evidence from the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 9650, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Michael Haylock & Patrick Kampkötter & Mario Macis & Jürgen Sauter & Susanne Seitz & Robert Slonim & Daniel Wiesen & Alexander H. Schmidt, 2022. "Improving the Availability of Unrelated Stem Cell Donors: Evidence from a Major Donor Registry," NBER Working Papers 29857, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Wilson Lin & Susan Feng Lu & Tianshu Sun, 2023. "Worker Experience and Donor Heterogeneity: The Impact of Charitable Workers on Donors’ Blood Donation Decisions," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 939-957, May.
    18. Ryan Petteway & Mahasin Mujahid & Amani Allen & Rachel Morello-Frosch, 2019. "Towards a People’s Social Epidemiology: Envisioning a More Inclusive and Equitable Future for Social Epi Research and Practice in the 21st Century," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    19. Bergstrom, Ted & Garratt, Rodney & Leo, Greg, 2019. "Let me, or let George? Motives of competing altruists," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 269-283.
    20. Kai Ruggeri, 2025. "Assessing evidence based on scale can be a useful predictor of policy outcomes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 58(1), pages 179-188, March.
    21. Zoltán Kaló & Adrian Gheorghe & Mirjana Huic & Marcell Csanádi & Finn Boerlum Kristensen, 2016. "HTA Implementation Roadmap in Central and Eastern European Countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 179-192, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:36:y:2021:i:4:p:1207-1222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.