Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Levels of analysis: solicitations, individuals, and collection sites.

Buildings represent fixed collection sites. The truck represents a mobile collection site.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Conceptual model of compliance with solicitations for donations.

Structural elements are depicted as boxes, and elements of the decision-making process are depicted as ellipses.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of study measures.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Compliance with solicitations for whole blood donations in 2012 and 2013.

The dashed lines indicate the means of each distribution. (A) Compliance on the individual level, N = 24 016 individuals. (B) Compliance on the collection site level, N = 164 collection sites.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Level of compliance by recruitment via word of mouth and by the level of talking about donations on the individual level and the collection-site level.

(A) Level of compliance for donors that were recruited via WOM or not, N = 23 862, missing = 183. (B) Level of compliance by level of talking about donations, N = 24 016, missing = 29. (C) Level of compliance by WOM recruitment on collection site level, N = 164. (D) Level of compliance by level of talking about donations on collection site level, N = 164.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Coefficient plot of average marginal effects (AMEs) on the probability of compliance with a solicitation for a donation.

AMEs are based on model 2 in S2 Table.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Average marginal effect of talking about donations with 95% CI by level of experience as a blood donor.

AMEs are based on model 2 in S2 Table.

More »

Fig 6 Expand