The psychosocial aspects of donating blood stem cells: The sibling donor perspective

✍ Scribed by Susan Williams; Rachel Green; Anne Morrison; Douglas Watson; Sister Susan Buchanan

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2003
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 110 KB
• Volume: 18
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0733-2459
• DOI: 10.1002/jca.10042

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

The collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) by apheresis has become common in related allogeneic donors. However, the acceptability of the procedure to donors has not been documented. The purpose of this baseline case series study was to evaluate the psycho‐social dimensions of apheresis from the perspective of healthy sibling donors and to explore issues surrounding fully informed consent including voluntary donation. At the first interview to discuss donation, 17 consecutive human leucocyte antigens (HLA) identical sibling donors who chose to donate PBPC were recruited to the study. They then completed both scales of the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory. The state scale was completed again immediately before first apheresis. At the end of the final apheresis, the donors were interviewed again by an independent researcher using a standardised questionnaire. All aspects of the procedure were well tolerated, including levels of anxiety and pain. Donors donated even if the relationship with their sibling was poor. However, some areas for improvement were highlighted. Eight (47%) donors were asked to donate by their sibling or another close relative, and this gave them no real volunteer status. Written information was judged important by 11 (65%) donors, but the material used was limited. The possibility of a poor outcome for the recipient was not well understood. The content of the written documentation and the management of confidentiality in terms of donor volunteer status needed to be addressed. A further study regarding the follow‐up needs of donors, including those where the outcome is poor, is underway. J. Clin. Apheresis 18:1–9, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.