Pandeep Kaur, Anuneet Tripathi, Ankita Nigam, Tarun Dhawan
Temporary donor deferral represents an important challenge to donor retention. Low hemoglobin was the leading cause of donor deferral in the present study. Structured telephonic follow-up was feasible and was associated with a 42.9% donor return rate among successfully contacted temporarily deferred donors. However, because the study did not include a non-intervention comparison group, the independent effect of telephonic follow-up on donor return cannot be established.
OBJECTIVES: Blood donor deferral is an essential component of donor selection aimed at ensuring the safety of both donors and recipients. However, temporary deferral may negatively affect subsequent donor return and contribute to loss of potentially eligible donors. The present study aimed to evaluate the pattern of blood donor deferral and assess donor return following structured telephonic follow-up after temporary deferral in a tertiary care blood centre.
METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion at National Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Donor recruitment was conducted from January 2026 to June 2026. All 339 temporarily deferred donors identified during the recruitment period constituted the follow-up cohort. Donor demographic details, type of donation, and causes of deferral were recorded. Temporarily deferred donors were contacted telephonically according to the eligibility timeline applicable to their individual deferral reason, using a standardized counselling script, and subsequent return for donation was assessed during the available observation period.
RESULTS: Among 4773 screened donors, 344 donors were deferred, resulting in an overall deferral rate of 7.2%. Temporary deferrals accounted for 339 (98.5%) of all deferrals. Low hemoglobin was the most common cause of deferral (30.7%), followed by recent antibiotic intake (14.5%), recent surgery (6.7%), poor venous access (5.6%), and tattooing (5.3%). Of the 339 temporarily deferred donors, 336 (99.1%) were successfully contacted, while 3 (0.9%) remained unreachable despite three attempts. Among the 336 successfully contacted donors, 144 (42.9%; 95% CI, 37.7-48.2%) returned to the blood centre and subsequently donated blood, whereas 192 (57.1%) did not return during the available observation period.
CONCLUSIONS: Temporary donor deferral represents an important challenge to donor retention. Low hemoglobin was the leading cause of donor deferral in the present study. Structured telephonic follow-up was feasible and was associated with a 42.9% donor return rate among successfully contacted temporarily deferred donors. However, because the study did not include a non-intervention comparison group, the independent effect of telephonic follow-up on donor return cannot be established.