Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Volume 20, Issue 2 , Pages 141-148 , April 2006

Perception of Blood Transfusion Risk

  • David Lee

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to David Lee, MD, FRCPC, Queen's University, 94 Stuart Street, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6.

References 

  1. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Public perception of the risk of blood transfusion. Transfusion. 2000;40:1017–1022
  2. Lee SJ, Liljas B, Churchill WH, et al. Perceptions and preferences of autologous blood donors. Transfusion. 1998;38:757–763
  3. Lee SJ, Neumann PJ, Churchill WH, et al. Patients' willingness to pay for autologous blood donation. Health Policy. 1997;40:1–12
  4. Lee SJ, Liljas B, Neumann PJ, et al. The impact of risk information on patients' willingness to pay for autologous blood donation. Med. Care. 1998;36:1162–1173
  5. Lee DH, Mehta MD, Hanisch S, et al. Public perceptions and attitudes about transfusion safety and blood donation. Transfus. Med. 2000;3:236
  6. Tsang B, James P, Mehta M, et al. Perceptions and attitudes about blood transfusion safety and blood donation. Blood. 2000;96:112b
  7. Sharma UK, Schreiber GB, Glynn SA, et al. Knowledge of HIV/AIDS transmission and screening in United States blood donors. Transfusion. 2001;41:1341–1350
  8. Ferguson E, Farrell K, Lowe KC, et al. Perception of risk of blood transfusion: Knowledge, group membership and perceived control. Transfus. Med. 2001;11:129–135
  9. Davenport RD. Public perception of the risk of blood transfusion. Transfusion. 2001;41:120S
  10. Moltzan C, Proulx N, Bormanis J, et al. Perceptions and motivations of Canadian autologous blood donors. Transfus. Med. 2001;11:177–182
  11. Chiavetta JA, Driezen P, O'Brien SF, et al. Blood donors' perception of transfusion safety. Transfusion. 2002;41:71S–72S
  12. Lee DH, Mehta MD, James PD. Differences in the perception of blood transfusion risk between lay people and physicians. Transfusion. 2003;43:772–778
  13. Lee DH, Mehta MD. Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: Effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk. Transfusion. 2003;43:779–787
  14. Ferguson E, Farrell K, James V, et al. Trustworthiness of information about blood donation and transfusion in relation to knowledge and perceptions of risk: An analysis of UK stakeholder groups. Transfus. Med. 2004;14:205–216
  15. Moxey AJ, O'Connell DL, Treloar CJ, et al. Blood transfusion and autologous donation: A survey of post-surgical patients, interest group members and the public. Transfus. Med. 2005;15:19–32
  16. Klein HG. Will blood transfusion ever be safe enough?. JAMA. 2000;284:238–240
  17. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 1999;19:689–701
  18. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127–152
  19. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285
  20. Slovic P. In: The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications; 2000;p. 473
  21. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8:177–187
  22. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Pidgeon N, et al. The social amplification of risk; assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In:  Pidgeon N,  Kasperson R,  Slovic P editor. The social amplification of risk. London: Cambridge University Press; 2003;p. 13–46
  23. Neil N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Toxicol. Pathol. 1994;22:198–201
  24. Slovic P, Malfors T, Krewski D, et al. Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgements of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal. 1995;15:661–675
  25. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty—heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–1131
  26. Redelmeier DA. Improving patient care. The cognitive psychology of missed diagnoses. Ann. Intern. Med. 2005;142:115–120
  27. Nisbett RE, Ross L. In: Human inference : Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980;p. 334
  28. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–291
  29. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–458
  30. Farrell K, Ferguson E, James V, et al. Confidence in the safety of blood for transfusion: The effect of message framing. Transfusion. 2001;41:1335–1340
  31. Calman KC. The language of risk: A question of trust. Transfusion. 2001;41:1326–1328
  32. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, et al. The affect heuristic. In:  Gilovich T,  Griffin DW,  Kahneman D editor. Heuristics and biases : The psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2002;p. 397–420
  33. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, et al. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004;24:311–322
  34. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, et al. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 2001;127:267–286
  35. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Risk management: Science and the precautionary principle. Science. 2000;288:979–981
  36. Tukker A. The precautionary principle and epidemiology: A contradictio in terminis?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 2002;56:883–884
  37. Starr C. The precautionary principle versus risk analysis. Risk Anal. 2003;23:1–3
  38. Wilson K, Ricketts MN. The success of precaution? Managing the risk of transfusion transmission of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Transfusion. 2004;44:1475–1478
  39. Douglas M, Wildavsky AB. In: Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982;p. 221
  40. Dake K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1991;22:61–82
  41. Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz CK, et al. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive-waste repository—analysis of a structural model. Risk Anal. 1992;12:417–429
  42. Jungermann H, Pfister HR, Fischer K. Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Anal. 1996;16:251–261
  43. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000;20:195–203
  44. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20:713–719
  45. Eiser JR, Miles S, Frewer LJ. Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002;32:2423–2433
  46. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Anal. 2005;25:199–209

PII: S0887-7963(05)00109-4

doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2005.11.006

Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Volume 20, Issue 2 , Pages 141-148 , April 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution