BRIEF REPORT
The role of social media for blood donor motivation and
recruitment
Ariane Sümnig, Martin Feig, Andreas Greinacher, and Thomas Thiele
BACKGROUND: Social media platforms have become
an important lifestyle aspect. Therefore, we implemented
communication via social media platforms to recruit new
donors and to motivate repeat donors. Here, we report a
survey among donors of our blood donation facility to
evaluate the impact of different strategies for donor
motivation from the donors’ perspective.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: During
8 consecutive weeks, all whole blood donors were asked
to participate. The survey consisted of a questionnaire
including the demographic items sex, age, number of
prior donations, and 14 potential motivators for blood
donation. Social media included the items “Facebook”
and “Jodel” (German local mobile application).
RESULTS: Of 3320 consecutive donors, 2920 (88%)
participated in the survey. Social media motivated 7.4%
of our donors, among them mainly young and female
donors. For first-time donors (FTDs; n = 157) the three
strongest motivational factors were friends and/or
relatives (73%), social media (15%), and “I do not need
additional motivation” (11%). Repeat donors (n = 2693)
most often stated that they do not need additional
motivation (72%) and only 7% were motivated by social
media.
CONCLUSION: Social media have become the second
most important motivator to recruit FTDs beside relatives
and friends who are by far the main motivators for FTDs.
For repeat donors, social media play a less important
role. Social media are becoming increasingly important
for transfusion services.
R
ecruitment of whole blood donors is a daily chal-
lenge for blood donation services and many cen-
ters implement strategies to motivate blood
donors. Available strategies to motivate donors
include personal communication (donors recruit donors);
advertisement via classical mass media such as newspaper,
radio, poster; or online media (homepage of transfusion ser-
vice and other internet platforms).1,2 Especially first-time
donors (FTDs) are motivated by friends and/or relatives and
requests via classical media (e.g., radio, television, or news-
paper).3,4 Both FTDs (86.1%) and repeat donors (85.7%) use
the internet as a source of general information.1 Particularly
young donors are attracted by interactive websites such as
social media platforms.5 As the use of social media among
the younger population has increased substantially,1 we
implemented communication via social media to recruit
new donors and to motivate repeat donors at our institu-
tion. Here, we report a survey among consecutive donors to
identify the impact of different media and advertisement
strategies for donor motivation. We aimed to identify the
most attractive source of donor motivation for FTDs and
repeat donors in our blood donation facility. Furthermore,
we surveyed for age-dependent responsiveness.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted as a survey among consecutive
whole blood donors at the Department of Transfusion Med-
icine at University Medicine Greifswald between May and
ABBREVIATION: FTD(s) = first-time donor(s).
From the Institut für Immunologie und Transfusionsmedizin,
Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Address reprint requests to: Thomas Thiele, Institut für Immu-
nologie und Transfusionsmedizin, Ferdinand-Sauerbruchstrasse,
17475 Greifswald, Germany; e-mail: thielet@uni-greifswald.de.
Received for publication April 21, 2018; revision received May
22, 2018; and accepted May 22, 2018.
doi:10.1111/trf.14823
© 2018 AABB
TRANSFUSION 2018;00;1–3
TRANSFUSION 1
SÜMNIG ET AL.
June 2017. It was approved by the ethical board of the Greifs-
wald University Medicine.
All donors were recruited during the opening hours
from 7 AM to 7 PM and underwent the standard procedure of
predonation assessment. All whole blood donors were asked
to participate in the study independently of donor status or
deferral. Donors were stratified in FTDs (donors who never
donated before) and repeat donors (donors with previous
donations). Donors were also grouped by age: 18 to
19, 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, and 50 or more years.4
The questionnaire
The survey included the demographic items sex, age, and
number of prior donations. Next, 14 potential motivators for
blood donation were requested: invitation card from the
donation center; flyer of the donation service; advertisement
in shopping center; advertisement in the city center; posters
or banner; friends or relatives; guided tour through our
donation center; e-mail by employer; appeal by radio, news-
paper, or television; and appeal by social media. Social
media included the items “Facebook” and “Jodel” (German
local mobile application). Donors could state “I do not need
any motivation, I would come anyway.” Multiple selections
were possible. An open question regarding other motiva-
tional factors was implemented in the survey as well.
Statistical analysis
The questionnaire data were entered into a database and
double controlled. The statistical analyses were performed
with computer software (SPSS Statistics 24.0, IBM Corp.).
Categorical data are represented as counts and percentages
of the total group size. Minimum and maximum and mean
and standard deviation values are used as descriptive statis-
tics for continuous data.
Differences in prevalence of motivational factors
between first and repeat donors were tested by Pearson chi-
square test. p values of less than 0.05 were considered sig-
nificant. To account for multiple testing in the context of
these analyses, p values were adjusted using the Bonferroni
method.
RESULTS
Demographics
Of 3320 consecutive donors, 2920 (87.9%) participated in
the survey. Fifty-one percent were male, 47.2% were female,
and 1.8% did not mention their sex. Mean (range) age was
35.9 (18-75) years. A total of 157 (5.4%) were FTDs, 2693
(92.2%) were repeat donors, and 70 (2.4%) did not state
their donation frequency. Age distribution was as follows:
6.2% were 18 to 19 years old, 36.8% were 20 to 29 years old,
20.4% were 30 to 39 years old, 13.4% were 40 to 49 years
old, 22% were more than 50 years old, and 1.3% did not
state their age.
2 TRANSFUSION
Role of social media
In total, 217 donors (7.4%) stated that they were motivated
by social media. Of those 59.0% were female and only 11.5%
were FTDs. Mainly young donors used social media plat-
forms (14.3% were 18-19 years old, 55.7% were 20-29 years
old, and 20.0% were 30-39 years old).
Motivation of FTDs
Of 157 FTDs (mean [range] age 25.5 [18-57] years),
114 (72.6%) were motivated by friends and/or relatives,
24 (15.3%) were activated by social media, 17 (10.8%) stated
that “I do not need additional motivation,” and 16 (10.2%)
were motivated by flyers. All other motivators accounted for
less than 10% each (Table 1).
Motivation of repeat donors
Of 2693 repeat donors (mean [range] age 36.4 [18-75] years)
1938 (72.0%) stated that “I do not need additional
motivation” followed by 647 (24.0%) who were motivated by
friends and/or relatives and 435 (16.2%) were motivated by
postcards from the donation facility. The fourth most moti-
vating factor was social media mentioned by 185 (6.9%)
repeat donors.
Motivational factors according to age
Motivational factors were age dependent, reflecting the sig-
nificant differences between FTDs and repeat donors
(Table 1). The use of social media decreased with higher
age (16.7% in those 18-19 years old vs. 1.6% in
those > 50 years old). Furthermore, the importance of
donor recruitment by “friends and/or relatives” decreased
with increasing age (60.0% in 18-19 years
vs. 11.7% > 50 years), whereas an increasing proportion of
older donors stated not to need additional motivation
(37.8% in 18-19 years vs. 84.4% in > 50 years). Finally, older
donors were more often motivated by postcards when com-
pared to younger donors.
DISCUSSION
Our study revealed that a relevant proportion of blood
donors respond to social media. More than 7% stated to
have been attracted to donation by social media, among
those are predominantly young and female donors. Approx-
imately 70% of social media users were less than 30 years of
age. This qualifies social media as a valuable tool to recruit
this young donor population for whole blood donation. For
older repeat donors, social media play a less important role.
Approximately 5% of our study population were FTDs.
FTDs are mainly motivated by friends and relatives (73%),
which is known from previous studies.1,4 However, based
on our survey, social media platforms have become the sec-
ond most important motivator to recruit FTDs at our
 SOCIAL MEDIA FOR DONOR MOTIVATION

TABLE 1. Motivational factors according to donor status and age*

Repeat All donors stratified by age (years)
Total, FTDs, donors,
Motivational n = 2920 n = 157 n = 2693 p 18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 ≥50
factors (100%)† (5.4%) (92.2%) value‡ 180 (6.2) 1074 (36.8) 596 (20.4) 392 (13.4) 641 (22.0)
No additional 1994 (68.3) 17 (10.8) 1938 (72.0) <0.001 68 (37.8) 649 (60.4) 418 (70.1) 300 (76.5) 541 (84.4)
motivation
Friends/ 776 (26.6) 114 (72.6) 647 (24.0) <0.001 108 425 (39.6) 103 (17.3) 59 (15.1) 75 (11.7)
relatives (60.0)
Postcards 448 (15.3) 2 (1.3) 435 (16.2) <0.001 6 (3.3) 146 (13.6) 117 (19.6) 59 (15.1) 114 (17.8)
Social media 217 (7.4) 24 (15.3) 185 (6.9) <0.001 30 (16.7) 117 (10.9) 42 (7.0) 11 (2.8) 10 (1.6)
Flyers 116 (4.0) 16 (10.2) 96 (3.6) <0.001 10 (5.6) 74 (6.9) 13 (2.2) 5 (1.3) 10 (1.6)
E-mail 100 (3.4) 14 (8.9) 80 (3.0) <0.001 3 (1.7) 35 (3.3) 26 (4.4) 21 (5.4) 13 (2.0)
Banner 53 (1.8) 7 (4.5) 45 (1.7) NS‡ 2 (1.1) 29 (2.7) 11 (1.8) 3 (0.8) 7 (1.1)
Guided tour 48 (1.6) 4 (2.5) 44 (1.6) NS 11 (6.1) 20 (1.9) 4 (0.7) 5 (1.3) 8 (1.2)
Newspaper 48 (1.6) 5 (3.2) 41 (1.5) NS 2 (1.1) 7 (0.7) 7 (1.2) 11 (2.8) 19 (3.0)
Advertisement 32 (1.1) 3 (1.9) 28 (1.0) NS 2 (1.1) 22 (2.0) 6 (1.0) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.2)
in city center
Radio 31 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 28 (1.0) NS 1 (0.6) 9 (0.8) 6 (1.0) 3 (0.8) 11 (1.7)
Television 27 (0.9) 4 (2.5) 21 (0.8) NS 5 (2.8) 5 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 5 (1.3) 10 (1.6)
Advertisement 27 (0.9) 4 (2.5) 21 (0.8) NS 6 (3.3) 8 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.5) 6 (0.9)
in shopping
center
* Data are reported as number (% of total for each strata; % of total per strata for each motivational factor), multiple answers were possible.
† 70 participants did not specify their donor status.
‡ Pearson chi-square, p values adjusted for multiple testing by Bonferroni method (13 tests for comparison of first time with repeat donors).
NS = not significant.

institution (Table 1). Therefore, we conclude that social
media are already an important cornerstone for the recruit-
ment of young FTDs.
The majority of repeat donors stated that they do not need
any additional motivation for blood donation. Friends and rela-
tives as well as postcards serve as reminders and a small pro-
portion of approximately 7% are attracted by social media. This
can be explained by the donor age, which reflects the impact
on the reception of donor motivation strategies. Whereas
young donors are most often attracted by friends and/or rela-
tives and social media, older donors mainly stated not to need
additional motivation. These findings point out the need for
strategies to qualify FTDs to become repeat donors, because
they serve as a reliable whole blood donor population. Of note,
albeit only a small proportion of 6.9% repeat donors are
attracted by social media, the absolute number of concerned
repeat donors is reasonable (Table 1). We believe that the influ-
ence of social media will probably increase over time also in
the older donor population, which will increase the general
impact of social media platforms for donor recruitment.
Our study is strengthened by the high number of more
than 3000 donors of whom roughly 90% participated in the
survey. We ruled out that donors were asked twice by tim-
ing the survey for 2 months. Our survey is limited by its
local design and may thus not represent the situation in
other blood donation services, for example, in mobile cen-
ters. However, we believe that our study exemplifies the
potential of using social media for donor recruitment.
In summary our study provides evidence that age,
donor status, and also sex affect the reception of donor moti-
vation strategies. Social media may become increasingly
important for transfusion services to attract FTDs and to
remind repeat donors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AS, MF, and TT designed and performed the study; AS,
AG, and TT analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript;
and all authors approved the final version of the
manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Moog R, Fourné K. Recruitment of prospective donors: what do
they expect from a homepage of a blood transfusion service?
Transfus Med 2007;17:279-84.
2. Lefrere JJ, Danic B. Blood donation on posters: a worldwide
review. Transfusion 2012;52:e1-14.
3. Sojka BN, Sojka P. The blood donation experience: self-reported
motives and obstacles for donating blood. Vox Sang 2008;94:
56-63.
4. Suemnig A, Konerding U, Hron G, et al. Motivational factors for
blood donation in first-time donors and repeat donors: a cross-
sectional study in West Pomerania. Transfus Med 2017;27:
413-20.
5. Bessos H, Seghatchian J. What’s happening: Scotblood 2005.
The donor, the product, the patient: how are we shaping up for
the 21st century? Transfus Apher Sci 2006;34:227-32.

TRANSFUSION 3