Blood donor profiling using donation patterns

Abstract

To have a better insight in the donor career, blood establishments need to have a reliable donor profiling system. Keeping track of the regularity of donating behaviour is crucial. Yet, different viewpoints exist on what is to be understood with the term regular donor. The article will present and compare two useful approaches of donor profiling.The first approach distinguishes different donor groups by using the total number of donations. This method uses the total number of donations to create donor groups. These donor groups are then studied in order to try to define factors that accurately describe differences between them. Up till now, the concrete number of donations that is used as a cut‐off value to create donor group varies widely among studies, as do the names allocated to describe the groups.The second approach uses donation frequency, thus donations made within a certain time frame, to allocate donors into different groups. Not only the number of donations is important, but donation frequency as well. Recently, a European wide project on blood donor management, called DOMAINE (Donor Management in Europe) has created a new set of donor types by using both the total number of donations but also the different donation patterns. The newly defined donor types are mutually exclusive and present donors in different stages of their donor career. The donor types range from first‐time, regular, returning, lapsing and inactive donor, to the last type, the stopped donor. This classification provides blood banks with relevant information on the current ‘activity’ status of their donors.A blood donor profiling system based on the number of blood donations has the clear advantage of getting a quick insight in the career of the donor. However, only focusing on the number of donations leaves out important information about the current activity status of the donor. By using both the total number of donations as well as donation patterns, a more clear‐cut classification of donor types is possible. In the short run, this may require a more time‐consuming and/or costly method of keeping track of donations, yet it has the advantage of keeping better track of donor activity and employability. It is a useful addition to donor profiling based solely on the total number of donations. Knowing the composition of the donor base and understanding accompanying donor behaviour allows for immediate directed retention, and if necessary, recruitment activities.