# Exploring Adverse Blood Donation Reactions Among Whole Blood Donors at a Tertiary Hospital Setting: A One‐Center Observational Mixed‐Methods Study

## TL;DR

This study examines adverse reactions during blood donation in Ghana, finding a high prevalence and identifying factors like age and blood pressure that may contribute.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into adverse blood donation reactions in a Ghanaian tertiary hospital setting, highlighting local prevalence and risk factors.

## Key findings

- 44.4% of donors experienced immediate adverse reactions, with vasovagal reactions being the most common.
- Younger age, lower blood pressure, and lower weight were significantly associated with adverse reactions.
- 22.1% of adverse reactions persisted 24 hours post-donation, indicating potential for delayed effects.

## Abstract

Although blood donation saves lives, it may be associated with adverse reactions. These reactions may be immediate or delayed and may be a factor in donor nonreturn. However, there is limited knowledge about blood donation–related adverse reactions and risk factors specific to the Ghanaian context.

To determine the prevalence of adverse blood donation reactions and associated risk factors among successful blood donors at a tertiary hospital setting.

This mixed‐methods research (May–June 2024) used observational techniques and semistructured questionnaires to investigate adverse reactions during and after blood donation. The study recruited 279 participants (241 mobile session donors and 38 in‐house donations) in a tertiary setting blood collection center. Bivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of some donor demographics on adverse reactions.

Overall, the prevalence of immediate adverse reaction was 44.4%; 51.4%, 36.5%, and 12.1% were local, vasovagal, and allergies, respectively. Blood donors who experienced adverse events had a statistically significantly lower median age (p = 0.007), lower systolic blood pressure (p = 0.004), lower diastolic pressure (p = 0.007), and lower weight (p = 0.030). Also, 22.1% of adverse donor reactions persisted 24 h postdonation; 38.7%, 58.1%, and 3.2% were local, vasovagal, and allergies, respectively. Bivariate logistics regression analysis showed that 16–19 years (aOR, 2.572, p = 0.477), males (aOR, 1.492, p = 0.125), students (aOR, 2.421, p = 0.325), the mobile session (aOR, 1.063, p = 0.928), and first‐time donors (aOR, 1.139, p = 0.690) were associated with nonstatistically significantly increased risk of immediate adverse donor reactions.

There is an urgent need to build staff competencies and operationalize standard operating protocols to enable staff to identify and handle adverse blood donation events quickly. Further studies are needed to understand the factors responsible for the high prevalence of adverse donor reactions to inform improvements in blood donor care.