Blood Donation and Monetary Incentives: A Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness

激励 现金 捐赠 付款 挤出效应 利比里亚元 荟萃分析 背景(考古学) 利他主义(生物学) 经济 公共经济学 医学 微观经济学 货币经济学 社会心理学 心理学 财务 内科学 生物 古生物学 经济增长
作者
Stijn Bruers
出处
期刊:Transfusion Medicine Reviews [Elsevier]
卷期号:36 (1): 48-57 被引量:12
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.08.007
摘要

The effectiveness of monetary incentives to increase altruistic behavior is in dispute. Paying blood donors might be ineffective, as it could decrease altruistic motivations of voluntary donors (motivational crowding-out) or decrease blood quality (increase transmittable infectious disease risks). In a meta-analysis, including observational studies, natural experiments and field experiments, the cost-effectiveness of monetary incentives (cash payments and quasi-cash material rewards) for blood donation is estimated. The search strategy identified 17 studies as eligible. After screening for relevance and quality, 8 studies were retained and GRADE-rated for quality of evidence, offering 12 estimates of the marginal donation rate. The combined, random-effects estimate of the marginal donation rate of monetary incentives is 0,4 extra blood units collected per 1000 inhabitants per year per dollar incentive, but with large variation due to large heterogeneity of the studies (explained by different contexts and differences in perceived costs for donors). A higher estimate of 1,0 extra blood units per 1000 inhabitants per year per dollar incentive, is obtained with a restricted meta-analysis that only includes the most reliable and more homogeneous studies. With donor payments, it costs an additional $22 to $121 to increase the blood supply with one unit of whole blood, but this strongly varies with context and local conditions. The positive marginal donation rate of donor payments is inconsistent with a crowding-out effect (a reduction in total blood supply caused by a decrease in altruistic motivations when donors are paid), at least in the short-run. The available studies are not suitable to estimate possible long-term crowding-out effects, negative spillover effects (eg, a decrease in other prosocial behavior or altruistic norms) or transmittable infectious disease risks. Whether monetary incentives are the most cost-effective and ethical strategy to increase blood and plasma supply, remains an open question.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
1秒前
pancake发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
九仙过海发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
核桃发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
walthime发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
慕青应助复杂的忆寒采纳,获得10
2秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
3秒前
RefractaireS完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
LiuZheng发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
李健的小迷弟应助Lee采纳,获得10
5秒前
君何踌躇不前完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
6秒前
6秒前
hhh完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
8秒前
深情安青应助LI采纳,获得10
8秒前
Zed plus发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
jelly完成签到,获得积分20
9秒前
10秒前
小饼干1029发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
王嘎嘎发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
俏皮的安萱完成签到 ,获得积分10
13秒前
abtitw完成签到,获得积分10
13秒前
jelly发布了新的文献求助20
13秒前
13秒前
15秒前
LiuZheng完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
桐桐应助北风采纳,获得10
15秒前
Wang完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
16秒前
直率定帮发布了新的文献求助10
17秒前
17秒前
18秒前
脑洞疼应助liushanshan采纳,获得10
18秒前
风趣幻枫完成签到,获得积分10
18秒前
傻傻的滑板完成签到 ,获得积分10
18秒前
xixixi发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Multi-Volume, 5th Edition 2000
The Cambridge History of China: Volume 4, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906 AD, Part Two 1000
The Composition and Relative Chronology of Dynasties 16 and 17 in Egypt 1000
Russian Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity 800
Real World Research, 5th Edition 800
Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo By Jenine Beekhuyzen, Pat Bazeley · 2024 800
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 生物 医学 工程类 计算机科学 有机化学 物理 生物化学 纳米技术 复合材料 内科学 化学工程 人工智能 催化作用 遗传学 数学 基因 量子力学 物理化学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 5712500
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 5210221
关于积分的说明 15267606
捐赠科研通 4864404
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2611375
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1561672
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1518958