Blood Donation Practice and Associated Factors in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background Blood donation is a novel act to save the lives of people who face serious medical and surgical conditions. Since the demand for blood supply is too high, there is a shortage of blood which causes significant morbidity and mortality. To increase blood supply and maintain adequate quantity of blood, regular and volunteer blood donation practice is needed, which meets the increased demand for blood. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed at assessing the prevalence of blood donation practices and associated factors in Ethiopia. Method PubMed/MEDLINE, HINARI, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, African Journals Online (AJOL), and published and unpublished articles from the Ethiopian University repository were searched to find articles. Cochrane I2 statistics and Egger's test with funnel plots were done to check heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. Subgroup analysis by region, study subjects, study setting, and sample size was done due to heterogeneity, as well as sensitivity analysis. Result Twenty studies from different regions with a total study subject of 8546 were included in the final review. The pooled prevalence of blood donation practice in Ethiopia was 25.82% (95% CI: 21.45-30.19). Having good knowledge of blood donation (AOR = 2.85; 95% CI: 2.33-3.48) and favorable attitude (AOR = 4.35; 95% CI: 2.93-6.45) were factors associated with blood donation practice in Ethiopia. Conclusion The pooled prevalence of blood donation practices in Ethiopia was short of the demand for blood due to the increase in serious medical conditions and road traffic accidents. Knowledge and attitude towards blood donation were significantly associated with blood donation practice. Therefore, awareness creation and health education programs targeting blood donation practice should be strengthened.


INTRODUCTION 3
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 3 Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

Protocol and registration
5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
NA Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

5
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

4
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. 4 Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

5
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

5
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

5
Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

10
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

14
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
14 Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

16
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

NA
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.

NA
Ethiopia.

Databases
Searching terms Number of studies MEDLINE/ PubMed "blood donation" OR "blood donation practice" AND "factors" OR "associated factors" OR "determinant factors"AND "university students"OR "residents"OR "health care workers" AND "Ethiopia" 540 Google Scholar "blood donation" OR "blood donation practice" AND "factors" OR "associated factors" OR "determinant factors"AND "university students"OR "residents"OR "health care workers" AND "Ethiopia"  SNNP, South Nation Nationalities and Peoples, Other, Tigri region and Afar region  Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits Figure S1: Funnel plot with 95% confidence limits of the pooled prevalence of blood donation practice in Ethiopia.