Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the Kelantan state of Malaysia. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions that covered areas such as donors' social demographic information, knowledge of transfusion-transmitted diseases, blood screening and donor eligibility and perceptions towards blood safety. The knowledge score was categorised as good or poor.
Results: Of the 450 distributed questionnaires, 389 were suitable for analysis. Only 18.5% of the donors had good knowledge, with 81.5% having poor knowledge. Less than 30% were aware that people with multiple sexual partners, bisexual people and male homosexual people are permanently deferred from blood donation. Only 29.4% agreed that donors are responsible if their blood causes infection. Furthermore, 39.3% assumed that they could check their HIV status through blood donation, and 10.3% and 5.4% of the respondents believed that donors are free from infection if they wear a condom during sex or only have oral sex when involved in prostitution, respectively.
Conclusion: Poor knowledge and notable misperceptions concerning safe blood donation were found among blood donors. The Ministry of Health should incorporate safe blood education in future public awareness programmes.
METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from February 2015 to February 2016. Samples from seronegative donors were run on multiplex assay (Cobas, S-201 system platform, Roche) in a batch of six [MP-NAT]. In case of reactive pool, tests were run on every individual sample [IDNAT].
RESULTS: Of 16957 donors, 16836 (99.2%) were replacement donors and the remaining 121 (0.7%) were voluntary donors, with a mean age of 29.09 ± 7.04 years. After serologic screening of all 16957 donors, 955 (5.6%) were found to be reactive; 291(1.71%) were reactive for hepatitis-B surface antigen, 361 (2.12%) for antibody to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV), 14 (0.08%) for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus, 287 (1.69%) for syphilis and 2 (0.01%) for malaria. 14 (0.08%) NAT reactive donors were identified after testing the 16002 seronegative donors, with an overall NAT yield of one reactivity out of 1143 blood donations; 10 donors for HBV-DNA (HBV NAT yield-1:1600) and remaining 4 for HCV-RNA (HCV-NAT yield-1:4000). None were HIV positive.
CONCLUSION: NAT has improved the safety attributes in blood products. Although the positivity rate for NAT testing is low but in view of the high prevalence of transfusion transmitted infections in our country, we recommend the parallel use of both serology and NAT screening of all donated blood.