Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Barriers and Motivators for In-house Blood Donation: A Cross-sectional Study from Tertiary Care Hospital, Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Yashobha Thilakarathne,
Sumudu, Gamini Waththa Uluvitike, Galle, Southern Province, Sri Lanka.
E-mail: yashoba81@gmail.com
Introduction: Most Sri Lankan blood donations (93%) are from mobile blood donation campaigns. Restricted community gathering during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has adversely affected the blood supply. Further, Kilinochchi has lower blood donation rates than other Sri Lanka areas.
Aim: To describe the level of donor satisfaction, identify the barriers and factors to increase in-house blood donors of a District General Hospital, Kilinochchi.
Materials and Methods: This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted with 193 in-house voluntary blood donors in blood bank at District General Hospital (DGH) Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka, from April 2021 to July 2021. Donors with atleast one year of residence in Northern Province were included, and data was collected by pretested, self-administered questionnaire. The parameters assessed were socio-demographic data, donor satisfaction, blood donation information receiving methods, factors affecting blood donation, and factors to improve blood donation. Data entered and analysed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0.
Results: Out of total 193, 120 (62.17%) were regular donors. Majority donors were male donors, 168 (87.04%) and among 25-35 years group, 85 (44.05%). Most had completed grade 13 exam, 66 (34.19%), only 28 (14.5%) had a degree and 106 (54.92%) donors were within 10 km from the blood bank. The majority of 122 (63.21%) were aware from a friend, and 16.06% (n=31) were aware from YouTube. Gaining information from a friend was statistically associated with the distance to the blood bank (p-value=0.036). A majority 190 (98.44%) of the in-house blood donors were satisfied with the services provided by the blood bank staff, and 188 (97.40%) had stated they are confident about the facilities provided by the blood bank for in-house blood donation.
Conclusion: Majority of the in-house blood donors were satisfied with the services provided by the blood bank staff and blood bank facilities. Delivering information regarding blood donation via friends to the population who reside close to the blood bank and awareness programs by healthcare workers would be the best method to improve in-house blood donations in this area.
Deterrents, Donations, Donor satisfaction, Facilitators
National Blood Transfusion Service Sri Lanka (NBTS) is a specialised campaign under the health ministry. As public health measures restricted community gatherings, maintaining the blood supply during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unique and challenging since 93% of Sri Lankan blood donations are from mobile blood donation campaigns. Thus, NBTS has emphasised the importance of increasing in-house blood donations (1).
District General Hospital (DGH) Kilinochchi caters to 150,000 populations in the Kilinochchi district, situated in the northern peninsula of Sri Lanka (2). The local population’s contribution to blood donation is relatively much lower than other country areas. In 2018, Sri Lanka had 450,640 blood donations, and Kilinochchi had only 1005 donations during the same year. when considering to 1000 population, 20.79 had donated in Sri Lanka, and only 7.97 donations/1000 population donations had occurred in Kilinochchi district (1).
The inconvenience due to the place or time is considered a common barrier for blood donation (3),(4). In Sri Lanka, distance to the blood bank was a barrier to in-house blood donation (5). Fear of needles, fear of acquiring diseases such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and side effects due to blood donation were identified as barriers to blood donation (3),(4).
Considering the facilitators to blood donation, Altruism is the most common factor (4),(6). Friends, encouraging media, and religion were influential factors for blood donation (7). Male gender and good knowledge about blood donation had been identified as positive factors by previous studies (8),(9). Rising awareness programs and new recruiting strategies are considered motivating factors for blood donation (4).
There were no published studies on in-house blood donors of the Kilinochchi area; therefore, this study would lead to further research in this area. Additional measures to improve in-house blood donations in blood bank-Kilinochchi need to be done based on the findings in the present study. Thus, the present study was done to describe the level of donor satisfaction, identify the barriers and factors to increase in-house blood donors of DGH Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka.
This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted with 193 in-house voluntary blood donors in blood bank at District General Hospital (DGH) Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka, from April 2021 to July 2021. The ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Ethical Clearance Committee, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka. Informed written consent was obtained from all the participants after explaining the purpose of the study, and the confidentiality of participants was maintained.
Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: All in-house voluntary blood donors at the blood bank, DGH Kilinochchi, who have been residing in Northern Province for at least the last one year, were included in the study. Non consenting in-house blood donors and blood donors who are not residents of Northern Province for at least one year were excluded.
Sample size calculation: The sample size was measured by Daniel’s 1999 formula to calculate sample size for prevalence studies (10). The sample size was 193, which was selected by the non probability sampling method, and all the eligible persons were recruited consecutively.
Data Collection
Data was collected with a self-administered questionnaire, which had two parts.
• Part A collected the socio-demographic data with nine questions.
• Part B included-Factors affecting in-house blood donation, donor satisfaction level, blood donation information receiving methods, factors affecting blood donation, factors to improve in-house blood donation with six questions.
Previous study on a similar topic was taken as a reference to design the study questionnaire (5). It was formulated in English and was reviewed by two transfusion medicine physicians to correct the questionnaire’s content. Then, it was translated to the Tamil and Sinhala languages and translated back to check the consistency of the translated version. Questionnaires were pretested with 10 mobile blood donors not included in the study.
When assessing donor satisfaction of blood bank staff and facilities, a scale from 1 to 10 was used, and scores >5 were regarded as satisfying levels.
Statistical Analysis
Data was entered and analysed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0. All the measurements were analysed for central tendency and dispersion. The p-value or confidence intervals were calculated. Nominal or ordinal data were analysed and presented as percentages and confidence intervals. The p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Majority were male donors 168 (87.04%) and were hindu devoties 151 (78.23). When considering the age groups most were among 25-35 years group 85 (44.05%) and nealy one fifth, 42 (21.76%) were among 18-24 years group. Most had completed grade 13 exam 66 (34.19%) and only 28 (14.5%) had a degree. Considering employment most were doing business, farming, manual labour 85 (44.04%) and 57 (29.53%) had done permanent occupation.
Most donors were within 10 km from the blood bank 106 (54.92%). Considering the mode of transport, a majority had used the motor bicycle 133 (68.9%). Four donors (2.1%) had walked to the blood bank. Most of the donors were regular donors, which accounted for 120 (62.17%) (Table/Fig 1).
Majority 190 (98.44%) of the in-house blood donors were satisfied with the services provided by the blood bank staff, and 188 (97.40%) had stated they are satisfied about the facilities provided by the blood bank for in-house blood donation (Table/Fig 2).
Learning from a friend, 122 (63.21%) was the most common method to get information about blood donation, while the least used way was to learn from radio (1.03%). Some donors have obtained information from multiple sources (Table/Fig 3).
To get information regarding blood donation from a friend has a statistically significant association with the distance from the blood bank (p-value=0.036). But obtaining information regarding blood donation from a friend did not associate with age, gender, education income, or donation frequency (Table/Fig 4).
Some blood donors had selected multiple aims for blood donation. A 48.18% (n=93) of participants’ blood donation aims to help people and 53.89% (n=104) blood donation for social responsibility (Table/Fig 5).
A total of 23 (11.91%) blood donors did not respond to the question on barriers of blood donation. Out of total, 73 (37.82%) stated barrier to blood donation was a smaller number of mobile blood donation camps in the area. Total 58 (30.06%) indicated barrier to blood donation was less awareness of the programme (Table/Fig 6).
Some blood donors had selected multiple methods to improve blood donation. A majority 128 (66.32%) suggested arranging public awareness programs by healthcare workers. Also, 39 (20.21%) mentioned that social media awareness would improve blood donation (Table/Fig 7).
In the present study, majority were male donors 168 (87.04%), which was familiar with other studies (5),(11). The majority of blood donors were less than 35 years of age 127 (65.8%). Similarly, a study done in the Western province of Sri Lanka had the majority of blood donors in 24-35 years age group (5) and, a study in India had a majority of blood donors in the age group of 18-37 (n=162, 81%) (11).
Most blood donors, 105 (54.4%) had income above 20,000 Sri Lankan Rupees (SLR); however average induvial income in the Northern province of Sri Lanka is 11,000 SLR (12). So, blood donors have income over the average monthly income of the normal population of Kilinochchi. In a study done in the Western Province of Sri Lanka, most donors 288 (73.1%) had income above 15000 SLR (5). This may be due to the voluntary non renumerated blood donor policy practiced in Sri Lanka, where donors do not receive any benefits from blood donation. In a similar study done in India, most blood donors 131 (65.5%) had an average income above 10,000 Indian rupees (11).
Most 106 (54.92%) blood donors were within 10 km from the blood bank, highlighting that distance influences in-house blood donation. A Western Province study reported a high percentage (94.4%) of blood donors within 10 km of the living place (5).
In this study, most were regular donors 120 (62.17%) comparable with other studies (5),(11) and annual statistic reports of the NBTS of Sri Lanka (1). A majority 190 (98.44%) of the in-house blood donors were satisfied with the services provided by the blood bank staff, and 188,97.40% had stated they are satisfied about the facilities provided by the blood bank for in-house blood donation.
Learning from a friend 122 (63.21%) was the most common method to get information about blood donation. There was a statistically significant association between obtaining information regarding blood donation from a friend and the distance to the blood donation facility (Chi-sqaure=4.403, df=1, p-value=0.036). In a study in Western Province in Sri Lanka, 95 (57.8%) had received information about in-house blood donation from friends (5). This study showed minimal use of the TV, radio, and newspapers as the source of information regarding in-house blood donation, compatible with Western Province, Sri Lanka study (5).
Interestingly, 31 (16.06%) had stated gaining information about in-house blood donation from the Internet (YouTube/Facebook) in the background of 47% of Sri Lankan population using the internet in 2021 (13). Therefore, it may be possible to improve awareness about in-house blood donation through the internet in the future. A 48.18% (n=93) of participants’ blood donation aims to help people and 53.89% (n=104) blood donation for social responsibility. This is comparable with other studies (4),(6),(7).
The central barriers for blood donation were not having enough blood donation camps 73 (37.82%) and not having adequate awareness about in-house blood donation, 58 (30.06%). In comparison, 34 (17.62%) of donors had stated fears that blood donation can cause side effects as the barrier for blood donations.
In this study, a majority 128 (66.32%) suggested that arranging public awareness programs by healthcare workers can improve blood donation. In previous studies, awareness was identified as a motivating factor for blood donation (4),(14). A 20.21% (n=39) suggested that social media awareness can improve blood donation. A study done in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic had a 31.65% (395/1248) response rate for the social media messages of blood donation, and it highlighted recruitment of young and female donors (15).
Limitation(s)
The limitation of the present study was that a non probability sampling method was used to select the sample; therefore, the finding in the present study can not be generalised to all in-house blood donors of Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, majority of the in-house blood donors were satisfied with the services provided by the blood bank staff and blood bank facilities. Delivering information regarding blood donation via friends to the population who reside close to the blood bank and awareness programs by healthcare workers would be the best method to improve in-house blood donations in this area. Further studies will be needed with probability sampling to generalise findings to Sri Lanka and assess the effectiveness of social media for promoting in-house blood donation. Future studies to assess the effectiveness of social media in promoting in-house blood donation are recommended.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/52387.16174
Date of Submission: Sep 15, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Dec 17, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jan 10, 2022
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2022
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 16, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jan 08, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Feb 26, 2022 (4%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com