Blood is an invaluable, life-sustaining fluid. Without a sufficient amount of blood, the cells of the human body could not receive adequate oxygen and nutrients they need to survive. Large volume of blood could be lost as a result of numerously varying serious conditions such as road traffic accidents, obstetric and gynecological hemorrhages, surgery, trauma, chemotherapy, and long-term therapies as well as anemia of medical or hematologic conditions or cancer. Because of these blood transfusion is considered as an integral and essential element of a health care system. Besides, blood transfusion is one part of complex medical and surgical interventions which improves the life expectancy and life quality in patients with a variety of acute and chronic conditions. Therefore, blood transfusion is now considered as an indispensable component of medical management of many diseases [
Blood donation is philanthropic deed in which the blood of a healthy person had been drawn voluntarily for the purpose of transfusion. The donated blood can be life-saving for individuals who have lost large amounts of blood because of serious accidents, as well as for individuals who have become severely anemic or have very low platelet counts and certain hematological disorders such as leukemia [
World Health Organization (WHO) recommends countries to focus on young people to achieve 100% nonremunerated voluntary blood donation by 2020. It also recommends that all countries should be self-sufficient in all blood products and that all blood donation should be voluntary, anonymous, and nonremunerated [
About 234 million major operations are performed worldwide every year; 63 million people undergo surgery for traumatic injuries, 31 million for treating cancers, and another 10 million for pregnancy-related complications. For all of these procedures, blood transfusion is mandatory [
In Ethiopia, there have been gross inadequacy and inequity in access to blood. The national requirement for blood in Ethiopia is between 80,000 and 120,000 units per year, but only 43% is collected [
Adult population are potential source of great interest not only for the blood they could supply but also because of the information on the subject “giving blood” which could promote the spread of healthy lifestyles and acquisition of greater awareness about one’s own health and contribute to the development of a mature, responsible, and civic attitude [
Community based cross-sectional study was conducted in Gondar town, Northwest Ethiopia, from February to May 2015. The source populations were all adults who were residing in study area at least for 6 months and who were available during data collection period. Those adults who were critically ill and had mental problems were excluded from the study.
The dependent variables were knowledge, attitude, and practice of blood donation. The independent variables were sociodemographic variables like sex, age, educational status, marital status, religion, and self-perceived health status.
Single population proportion formula,
In the first stage of the sampling, three administrative areas (subcities), Lideta, Maraki, and Gebriel, were selected by using simple random sampling technique from the total 12 subcities. In the second stage of sampling, Sanita ketena from Lideta subcity, ketena two from Maraki subcity, and kebele 14 from Gebriel subcity were selected randomly. Then, systematic sampling technique was employed to select households from each of the ketenas/kebeles. The numbers of households sampled from the selected ketenas and kebeles were determined using proportionate-to-population size.
There were a total of 4603 households in three selected kebeles/ketenas: 1800 in Sanita ketena of Lideta subcity, 1960 in ketena two of Maraki subcity, and 843 in kebele 14 of Gebriel subcity. The interval (
The initial household was randomly selected by lottery method. Then other households were selected at every
Knowledge about blood donation was assessed using 13 general questions which are deemed to be known by general population like place of blood donation, importance of blood donation, and eligibility for blood donation. Each response was scored as “1” for correct response and “0” for incorrect response. The scoring ranges from 13 (largest) to 0 (smallest). Knowledge scores for individuals were calculated and summed up to give the total knowledge score. Participants who correctly responded to more than 50% of knowledge assessing questions were considered as having adequate knowledge about blood donation, whereas those who scored <50% were considered as having inadequate knowledge about blood donation.
Similarly, 14 attitudes related questions were asked, and the responses of each question were scored as “1” for correct response and “0” for incorrect response. The attitude scoring ranges from 14 (largest) to 0 (smallest). Attitude scores for individuals were calculated and summed up to give the total attitude score. Participants who correctly responded to more than 50% of attitude assessing questions were considered as having good attitude towards blood donation, whereas those who scored ≤50% were considered as having poor attitude towards blood donation.
The practice was assessed by asking about history of previous donation and the frequency of donation. The practice was scored from largest (the number of times a donor donated previously) to smallest 0 (never donated before).
The data were entered using Epi Info version 3.5.1 and then cleaned and analyzed using SPSS version 20 software package. Data cleaning was carried out by running frequency of each categorical variable and cross tabulation of different categorical variables. Descriptive results were summarized as percentage, means, and standard deviations and presented in table. Each of the outcome variables was computed with each independent variable. The association of the independent variable with the categorical outcome variable was measured by calculating odds ratio with
The research was conducted after ethical approval letter was given from Research and Ethical Committee of School of Biomedical and Laboratory Science, University of Gondar. In addition, after explaining the importance of study, permission letter was taken from each of the kebeles/ketenas administrators, and an informed consent was obtained from each study participant.
From a total of 768 participants, 430 (56%) were male and 338 (44%) were female. More than half of the participants (
Sociodemographic characteristics of adult population living in Gondar town, 2015 (
Variables | Frequency ( |
Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
|
||
20–25 years | 402 | 52.3 |
26–30 years | 232 | 30.2 |
31–35 years | 79 | 10.3 |
36–40 years | 55 | 7.2 |
|
||
|
||
Male | 430 | 56 |
Female | 338 | 44 |
|
||
|
||
Below secondary school | 225 | 29.3 |
Attend secondary school | 189 | 24.6 |
Attend higher education | 354 | 46.1 |
|
||
|
||
Student | 194 | 25.3 |
Unemployed | 166 | 21.8 |
Farmer | 6 | 0.8 |
Daily laborer | 28 | 3.6 |
Government employee | 195 | 25.4 |
Own private work | 165 | 21.5 |
Private employee | 14 | 1.8 |
|
||
|
||
Orthodox Christian | 609 | 79.3 |
Muslim | 101 | 13.2 |
Protestant Christian | 46 | 6 |
Catholic and Jewish | 12 | 1.5 |
|
||
|
||
Single | 493 | 64.2 |
Married | 210 | 27.3 |
Divorced | 33 | 4.3 |
Widowed | 16 | 2.1 |
Married but live in separated place | 16 | 2.1 |
|
||
|
||
Excellent | 206 | 26.8 |
Very good | 231 | 30.1 |
Good | 305 | 39.7 |
Poor | 26 | 3.4 |
From the total study participants, 436 (56.8%) had adequate knowledge towards blood donation. The mean knowledge score of the participants was
Knowledge towards blood donation among adult population living in Gondar town, 2015.
Knowledge assessment items | Response | |
---|---|---|
Correctly responded ( |
Incorrectly responded ( |
|
Place of blood donation | 650 (84.6) | 118 (15.4) |
Importance of blood donation | 678 (88.3) | 90 (11.7) |
Minimum age eligible for blood donation | 338 (44) | 430 (56) |
Minimum weight eligible for blood donation | 110 (14.3) | 658 (85.7) |
How often eligible individual can donate blood | 259 (33.7) | 509 (66.3) |
Best blood donor type | 654 (85.2) | 114 (14.8) |
Can pregnant women donate blood | 524 (68.2) | 244 (31.8) |
Can women on menstruation donate blood | 344 (44.8) | 424 (55.2) |
Can lactating women donate blood | 366 (47.7) | 402 (52.3) |
Can diabetic patients donate blood | 434 (56.5) | 334 (43.5) |
Can smokers donate blood | 261 (34) | 507 (66) |
Maximum volume of blood being donated once | 225 (29.3) | 543 (70.7) |
More than three-fourths, 630 (82%), of the respondents had good attitude towards blood donation. The mean attitude score of the participants was
Attitude towards blood donation among adult population living in Gondar town, 2015.
Attitude assessment items | Response | |
---|---|---|
Correctly responded ( |
Incorrectly responded ( |
|
What do you think about blood donation | 741 (96.5) | 27 (3.5) |
Do you think that donors will be exposed to infection during blood donation | 511 (66.5) | 257 (33.5) |
Do you think donation is a moral duty | 397 (51.7) | 371 (48.3) |
Do you think donation is harmful to donors | 567 (73.8) | 201 (26.2) |
Do you think donation leads to anemia | 486 (63.3) | 282 (36.7) |
Will you donate voluntarily for the future | 608 (79.2) | 160 (20.8) |
Do you have a plan to donate voluntarily within the coming six months | 356 (46.4) | 412 (53.6) |
Will you donate blood to an unknown person if you were asked | 542 (70.6) | 226 (29.4) |
Will you ask for a monetary compensation for blood donation | 719 (93.6) | 49 (6.4) |
Will you discuss blood donation with your friends and your family | 599 (78) | 169 (22) |
Will you motivate others to donate | 659 (85.8) | 109 (14.2) |
Less than one-quarter, 141 (18.4%), of the respondents had an experience of blood donation, while the rest of the participants, 627 (81.6%), never donated blood before. Of those who donated before, 86 (61%) were voluntary donors, while the rest 39% of them were replacement donors. The major reasons mentioned for not donating blood among nondonors were perception of not being fitted to donate blood (21.2%), lack of information on where, when, and how to donate blood (17%), fear of being anemic after blood donation (12.6%), and fear of health risk after donation (12.3%) (Table
Practice and frequency of blood donation and reason for donating and not donating blood among adult population in Gondar town, 2015.
Frequency and reasons | Blood donation practice | |
---|---|---|
Ever donated ( |
Never donated ( |
|
Previous blood donation | 141 (18.4) | 627 (81.6) |
|
||
How many times you donate | ||
One time | 79 (56.0) | |
2–5 times | 59 (41.8) | |
>5 times | 3 (2.2) | |
|
||
Reason for donation | ||
A friend or relative needed blood | 55 (39.0) | |
Voluntary | 86 (61.0) | |
|
||
Reason for not donating | ||
Fear of health problem | 77 (12.3) | |
Fear of being anemic | 79 (12.6) | |
Fear of weight loss | 35 (5.6) | |
Since it is religiously prohibited | 11 (1.7) | |
Since I have no time to donate | 74 (11.8) | |
Since I have no information on when, where, and how to donate | 106 (17.0) | |
I do not think I am fit to donate | 133 (21.2) | |
Fear of needle | 29 (4.6) | |
Since a friend/family told me not to donate | 15 (2.4) | |
Since I do not like the idea of blood donation | 55 (8.7) | |
Since I did not get the chance | 13 (2.1) |
In bivariate logistic regression, age, occupation, marital status, educational status, and self-perceived health status were significantly associated with adequate knowledge about blood donation, while, in multivariate logistic regression controlling confounders, secondary educational status (AOR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.51, 3.44) and higher educational status (AOR = 2.88; 95% CI: 2.01, 4.12) were significantly associated with adequate knowledge towards blood donation (Table
Logistic regression of knowledge towards blood donation with sociodemographic characteristics of adult population in Gondar town, 2015.
Variables | Knowledge status | Total | COR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adequate knowledge | Inadequate knowledge | ||||
|
|||||
20–25 years | 244 (60.7%) | 158 (39.3%) | 402 | 1.5 (1.06, 2.03) |
|
26–30 years | 119 (51.3%) | 113 (48.7%) | 232 | 1.00 | |
31–35 years | 49 (62.0%) | 30 (38.0%) | 79 | 1.55 (0.92, 2.62) | |
36–40 years | 24 (43.6%) | 31 (56.4%) | 55 | 0.74 (0.41, 1.33) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Female | 189 (55.9%) | 149 (44.1%) | 338 | 1.00 | |
Male | 247 (57.4%) | 183 (42.6%) | 430 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.42) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Below secondary school | 88 (39.1%) | 137 (60.9%) | 225 | 1.00 | |
Attend secondary school | 112 (59.3%) | 77 (40.7%) | 189 | 2.26 (1.53, 3.36) | 2.28 (1.51, 3.44) |
Attend higher education | 236 (66.7%) | 118 (33.3%) | 354 | 3.11 (2.2, 4.41) | 2.88 (2.01, 4.12) |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Private employees | 7 (50.0%) | 7 (50.0%) | 14 | 1.00 | |
Students | 118 (60.8%) | 76 (39.2%) | 194 | 1.24 (0.42, 3.73) | |
Unemployed | 89 (45.9%) | 105 (54.1%) | 194 | 0.75 (0.25, 2.24) | |
Farmers | 0 | 6 (100%) | 6 | — | |
Government employees | 139 (71.3%) | 56 (28.7%) | 195 | 2.73 (0.9, 8.31) | |
Own private work | 83 (50.3%) | 82 (49.7%) | 165 | 1.04 (0.35, 3.14) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Orthodox Christian | 348 (57.1%) | 261 (42.9%) | 609 | 1.00 | |
Muslim | 52 (51.5%) | 49 (48.5%) | 101 | 0.8 (0.52, 1.21) | |
Protestant Christian | 27 (58.7%) | 19 (41.3%) | 46 | 1.1 (0.6, 1.96) | |
Catholic and Jewish | 9 (75.0%) | 3 (25.0%) | 12 | 2.25 (0.6, 8.4) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Single | 280 (56.8%) | 213 (43.2%) | 493 | 1.00 | |
Married | 127 (60.5%) | 83 (39.5%) | 210 | 1.16 (0.84, 1.62) | |
Divorced | 12 (36.4%) | 21 (63.6%) | 33 | 0.44 (0.21, 0.9) |
|
Widowed | 6 (37.5%) | 10 (62.5%) | 16 | 0.46 (0.2, 1.28) | |
Married but live in separated place | 11 (68.8%) | 5 (31.2%) | 16 | 1.67 (0.57, 4.9) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Excellent | 130 (63.1%) | 76 (36.9%) | 206 | 1.61 (1.12, 2.31) |
|
Very good | 135 (58.4%) | 96 (41.6%) | 231 | 1.33 (0.94, 1.87) | |
Good | 157 (51.5%) | 148 (48.5%) | 305 | 1.00 | |
Poor | 14 (53.8%) | 12 (46.2%) | 26 | 1.1 (0.49, 2.45) |
In bivariate logistic regression marital status, religion, and self-perceiver health status were significantly associated with attitude of the participants, while in multivariate logistic regression religion was the factor which was significantly associated with attitude towards blood donation (Table
Logistic regression of attitude towards blood donation with sociodemographic characteristics of adult population in Gondar town, 2015.
Variables | Attitude | Total | COR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good | Poor | ||||
|
|||||
36–40 years | 41 (74.5%) | 14 (25.5%) | 55 | 1.00 | |
20–25 years | 337 (83.8%) | 65 (16.2%) | 402 | 1.8 (0.91; 3.43) | |
26–30 years | 183 (78.9%) | 49 (21.1%) | 232 | 1.28 (0.64; 2.53) | |
31–35 years | 69 (87.3%) | 10 (12.7%) | 79 | 2.36 (0.96; 5.8) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Female | 270 (79.9%) | 68 (20.1%) | 338 | 1.00 | |
Male | 360 (46.9%) | 70 (9.1%) | 430 | 1.3 (0.9; 1.9) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Below secondary school | 176 (78.2%) | 49 (21.8%) | 225 | 1.00 | |
Attend secondary school | 159 (84.1%) | 30 (15.9%) | 189 | 1.5 (0.9; 2.44) | |
Attend higher education | 295 (83.3%) | 59 (16.7%) | 354 | 1.4 (0.91; 2.12) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Private employees | 10 (71.4%) | 4 (28.6%) | 14 | ||
Students | 160 (82.5%) | 34 (17.5%) | 194 | 1.90 (0.56; 6.36) | |
Unemployed | 155 (79.9%) | 39 (20.1%) | 194 | 1.6 (0.5; 5.34) | |
Farmers | 4 (66.7%) | 2 (33.3%) | 6 | 0.8 (0.1; 6.25) | |
Government employees | 163 (83.6%) | 32 (16.4%) | 195 | 2.04 (0.60; 6.9) | |
Own private work | 138 (83.6%) | 27 (16.4%) | 165 | 2.04 (0.6; 7.0) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Orthodox Christian | 498 (81.8%) | 111 (18.2%) | 609 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Muslim | 84 (83.2%) | 17 (16.2%) | 101 | 1.1 (0.63, 1.92) | 1.1 (0.63, 1.92) |
Protestant Christian | 43 (93.5%) | 3 (5.6%) | 46 | 3.2 (0.97, 10.5) | 3.2 (0.97, 10.5) |
Catholic and Jewish | 5 (41.7%) | 7 (58.3%) | 12 | 0.16 (0.05, 0.51) | 0.16 (0.05, 0.51) |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Single | 408 (82.8%) | 85 (17.2%) | 493 | 1.00 | |
Married | 174 (82.9%) | 36 (17.1%) | 210 | 1.6 (0.51, 5.1) | |
Divorced | 26 (78.8%) | 7 (21.2%) | 33 | 1.6 (0.49, 5.28) | |
Widowed | 10 (62.5%) | 6 (37.5%) | 16 | 1.2 (0.3, 5.1) | |
Married but live in separated place | 12 (75.0%) | 4 (25.0%) | 16 | 0.6 (0.12, 2.54) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Excellent | 175 (85.0%) | 31 (15.0%) | 206 | 3.0 (1.22, 7.31) |
|
Very good | 187 (81.0%) | 44 (19.0%) | 231 | 2.25 (0.941, 5.4) | |
Good | 251 (82.3%) | 54 (17.7%) | 305 | 2.46 (1.04, 5.81) |
|
Poor | 17 (65.4%) | 9 (34.6%) | 26 | 1.00 |
In bivariate logistic regression analysis, age, sex, religion, marital status, and self-perceived health status were statistically associated with blood donation practice of the respondents, while in multivariate logistic regression analysis, participant’s age, sex, religion, and self-perceived health status were found to be significantly associated with practice of blood donation (Table
Logistic regression of blood donation practice with sociodemographic characteristics of adult population in Gondar town, 2015.
Variables | Blood donation practice | Total | COR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ever donated | Never donated | ||||
|
|||||
20–25 years | 60 (14.9%) | 342 (85.1%) | 402 | 1.00 | |
26–30 years | 35 (16.1%) | 197 (84.9%) | 232 | 1.01 (0.64; 1.6) | 1.02 (0.64; 1.63) |
31–35 years | 26 (32.9%) | 53 (67.1%) | 79 | 2.8 (1.62; 4.82) | 2.62 (1.6; 4.86) |
36–40 years | 20 (36.4%) | 35 (63.6%) | 55 | 3.26 (1.76; 6.02) | 3.8 (2.0; 7.31) |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Female | 47 (13.9%) | 291 (86.1%) | 338 | 1.00 | |
Male | 94 (21.9%) | 336 (78.1%) | 430 | 1.732 (1.2; 2.54) | 1.7 (1.14; 2.54) |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Below secondary school | 34 (15.1%) | 191 (84.9%) | 225 | 1.00 | |
Attend secondary school | 39 (20.6%) | 150 (79.4%) | 189 | 1.46 (0.9; 2.43) | |
Attend higher education | 68 (19.2%) | 286 (80.8%) | 354 | 1.34 (0.85; 2.1) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Private employee | 3 (21.4%) | 11 (78.6%) | 14 | 1.00 | |
Student | 30 (15.5%) | 164 (84.5%) | 194 | 0.67 (0.2; 2.55) | |
Unemployed | 27 (13.9%) | 167 (86.1%) | 194 | 1.6 (0.16; 2.26) | |
Farmer | 0 | 6 (100.0%) | 6 | — | |
Government employee | 57 (29.2%) | 138 (70.8%) | 195 | 1.51 (0.41; 5.63) | |
Own private work | 24 (14.5%) | 141 (85.5%) | 165 | 0.62 (0.16; 2.4) | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Orthodox Christian | 110 (18.1%) | 499 (81.9%) | 609 | 1.00 | |
Muslim | 13 (12.9%) | 88 (87.1%) | 101 | 0.7 (0.36; 1.24) | 0.63 (0.33; 1.2) |
Protestant Christian | 17 (37.0%) | 29 (63.0%) | 46 | 2.66 (1.41; 5.01) | 2.62 (1.36; 5.1) |
Catholic and Jewish | 1 (8.3%) | 11 (91.7%) | 12 | 0.65 (0.1; 5.32) | 0.51 (0.06; 4.45) |
|
|||||
|
|||||
Single | 72 (14.6%) | 421 (85.4%) | 493 | 1.00 | |
Married | 51 (24.3%) | 159 (75.7%) | 210 | 1.9 (1.25; 2.8) |
|
Divorced | 7 (21.2%) | 26 (78.8%) | 33 | 1.6 (0.66; 3.76) | |
Widowed | 5 (31.2%) | 11 (68.8%) | 16 | 2.66 (0.9; 7.9) | |
Married but live in separated place | 6 (37.5%) | 10 (62.5%) | 16 | 3.51 (1.24; 9.95) |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Good | 40 (13.1%) | 265 (86.9%) | 305 | 1.00 | |
Excellent | 49 (23.8%) | 157 (76.2%) | 206 | 2.1 (1.3; 3.28) | 2.23 (1.4; 3.62) |
Very good | 44 (19.0%) | 187 (81.0%) | 231 | 1.56 (0.98; 2.5) | 1.6 (0.97; 2.6) |
Poor | 8 (30.8%) | 18 (69.2%) | 26 | 2.94 (1.2; 7.22) | 2.6 (0.99; 6.8) |
In addition, we had tried to assess the correlation between knowledge, attitude, and practice scores of the study participants. Knowledge and attitude scores of the participants achieved significant but weak positive correlation (
In this study, an attempt has been made to assess the level and factors associated with knowledge, attitude, and practice of adults on blood donation. From the total study participants, 436 (56.8%) had adequate knowledge regarding blood donation. The result is higher than a study done in Jordan aimed at investigating knowledge and attitude of blood donors and barrier concerning blood donation among 500 blood donors which reported that 28.6% of them had adequate knowledge [
In this study, more than three-fourths (88.3%) of the participants knew that the importance of blood donation is to save life. The result was higher than a study conducted in Democratic Republic of Congo among 416 participants to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the general population showing that only 183 (44.1%) of them responded that the importance of blood donation is to save life [
In the current study, multivariate logistic regression showed that educational status was the only variable that significantly associated with the knowledge of participants. Participants who attended or had been attending secondary education (AOR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.51; 3.44) and higher education (AOR = 2.9; 95% CI: 2.01; 4.12) were more likely to have adequate knowledge towards blood donation. Thus, as the level of education increases, participants’ knowledge towards blood donation also increases.
Majority 630 (82%) of the study participants have good attitude towards blood donation. About 282 (36.7%) of them had a perception that blood donation causes anemia. This result is in line with a study conducted in Mekelle City in which 370 (45.9%) of the study participants believed that blood donation causes anemia [
In this study, religion was the only variable significantly associated with the attitude of the participants using multivariate logistic regression. Those participants who were catholic and Jewish (AOR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.51) were less likely to have good attitude towards blood donation. Being catholic and Jewish reduces the attitude towards blood donation by 84% compared to being orthodox Christian by religion. This needs further in-depth behavioral study to explore the reason why being catholic and/or Jewish by religion reduces blood donation perception.
In the current study, less than one-fourth, 141 (18.4%), of the study participants had the experience of blood donation. The result is in agreement with studies done in Trinidad and Tobago (18.8%) [
Among donors, 62 (43.9%) donated blood more than once. The rate of previous blood donation is higher than study done in Saudi Arabia (26.4%) [
More than half, 432 (68.9%), of nondonors stated wrong perception like fear of being anemic, fear of weight loss, fear of health problem, perception of not being fit, and lack of information on where, when, and how to donate blood as a major reason for not donating. This result is consistent with study conducted in Trinidad and Tobago [
In current study, multivariate logistic regression showed that participant’s age, sex, religion, and self-perceived health status were significantly associated with the practice of participants. Those participants in age ranges of 31–35 years (AOR = 2.61; 95% CI: 1.6; 4.86) and 36–40 years (AOR = 3.8; 95% CI: 2.0; 7.31) were more likely to donate blood as compared to participants in age range of 20–25 years. The possible reason for this might be due to the fact that participants at age range of 30–40 years are in late adulthood stage so that they are assumed to be socially proactive and donate blood. This had also been supported by study done in southern Brazil which revealed that individuals in the age range of 30–49 had higher tendency to be loyal blood donors [
In this study, more than half, 94 (66.6%), of donors were male. The result is in line with a study conducted in Togo which showed that majority (61%) of blood donors were male [
In this study, study participants with excellent self-perceived health status were two times more likely to donate blood as compared with those with good self-perceived health status (AOR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.4; 3.62). This is in line with study done in southern Brazil [
In this study, knowledge and attitude scores of the participants had shown significant positive correlation even if the correlation is weak (
In the current study, the major reasons mentioned by nondonors for not donating blood were perception of not being fitted to donate blood, lack of information on where, when, and how to donate blood, fear of being anemic after blood donation, and fear of health risk after donation. Even though the extent of the problem varies with race, sociocultural values, and socioeconomic status of the population on which the studies focused, the blood donation barriers reported by nondonors in our study are nearly in agreement with other studies [
In general, the study revealed that the proportion of adults who had adequate level of knowledge about blood donation and good attitude towards blood donation is high. However, the level of blood donation practice was low; and perception like not being fitted to donate blood, fear of being anemic after blood donation, fear of health risk after donation, and lack of information on where, when, and how to donate blood were the major reason for not donating blood. Educational status remained to be significantly associated with knowledge about blood donation. Regarding factors affecting attitude towards blood donation, religion was the only variable which remained to be significantly associated with attitude. Besides age, sex, religion, and self-perceived health status were statistically significant variables that affect blood donation practice.
The authors declare that there are no competing interests.
Mulugeta Melku, Elias Shiferaw, and Mohamedamin Areba participated in designing the study, performed the data collection and statistical analysis, and are lead authors of the paper. Betelihem Terefe, Fikir Asrie, Yakob Gebregziabher Tsegay, Tadele Melak, and Bamlaku Enawgaw participated in designing the study and helped in drafting the paper. Mulugeta Melku and Elias Shiferaw are the joint first authors of the paper. All authors read and approved the final paper.
The authors thank all individuals who heartfully participated during data collection. The authors are also grateful to the adults for their voluntary participation in their study. Lastly, the authors would like to thank University of Gondar for financial and logistic support.