Awareness of biobanking among patients and doctors: experience of the Tomsk Oblast

Aim. To assess awareness of biobanking among patients and healthcare professionals, and to identify factors influencing willingness to become donors and participate in the collection of biological material.

Material and methods. A qualitative study was conducted based on semi-structured interviews of doctors (n=11) and patients (n=11) of Tomsk medical organizations. The results obtained were processed using lexical and comparative analysis techniques.

Results. The experience of participation in biobanking was extremely limited among both patients and doctors, but those who had previous experience evaluated it positively. Patients and doctors had not received information about biobanks from official sources, but intuitively understood their functions and roles in biomedical research. Patients were willing to donate biomaterials, while doctors were willing to collect them, but both parties emphasized the importance of understanding the purpose and future use of the biomaterials. Patients wanted to ensure the safety of the collection procedures and the confidentiality of their personal data. The main motives for donating biomaterial were contribution to scientific development, potential attractiveness for the descendants of donors, social origin and material reward.

Conclusion. Popularizing biobanking and increasing the awareness of donors and healthcare professionals about the regulatory framework governing biobanking activities can help establish trust and enhance readiness for donation, even regarding invasive biomaterial collection procedures.

1. Yu J, Sullivan BG, Senthil GN, et al. Prevalence of Primary Liver Cancer is Affected by Place of Birth in Hispanic People Residing in the United States: All of Us Research Program Report. American Surg. 2022:2565­71. doi:10.1177/00031348221109465.

2. Nagar SD, Pemu P, Qian J, et al. Investigation of hypertension and type 2 diabetes as risk factors for dementia in the All of Us cohort. Sci Rep. 2022:19797. doi:10.1038/s41598­022­23353­z.

3. Zhabagin MK, Damba LD, Korotkova NA, et al. Analysis of Clan Structure of Tuvans by Y­Chromosome Markers. Russian J. of Genetics. 2020;56(6):732­8. (In Russ.) doi:10. 31857/S0016675820060132.

4. Kozlov AI, Balanovsky OP, Vershubskaya GG, et al. Genetically determined trehalase deficiency in various population groups of Russia and neighboring countries. Vopr Pitan. 2021;90:96­103. (In Russ.) doi:10.33029/00428833­2021­90­5­96­103.

5. Balanovska EV, Gorin IO, Petrushenko VS, et al. Geographic distribution of the LZTFL1 SNP markers associated with severe COVID­19 in Russia and worldwide. Bulletin of RSMU. 2022;5:3140. (In Russ.) doi:10.24075/vrgmu.2022.047.

6. Drapkina OM, Shalnova SA, Imaeva AE, et al. Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Diseases in Regions of Russian Federation. Third survey (ESSE­RF­3). Rationale and study design. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2022;21(5):3246. (In Russ.) doi:10.15829/1728­88002022­3246.

7. Maksimov SA, Shalnova SA, Muromceva GA, et al. Menopause and Hyperuricemia in Women in the Russian Population (Results of the ESSE­RF Study). Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2021:449­57. (In Russ.) doi:10.15690/vramn1455.

8. Kurilova OV, Klimushina MV, Kiseleva AV, et al. Carrier frequency of heterozygous phenylketonuria mutations in the population­ based cohort study (ESSE­VOLOGDA). Molecular Genetics, Microbiology and Virology. 2021:38­45. (In Russ.) doi:10.17116/molgen20213902138.

9. Neidich AB, Joseph JW, Ober C, et al. Empirical data about women’s attitudes towards a hypothetical pediatric biobank. Am J Med Genetics. Part A. 2008:297­304. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32145.

10. Gao Z, Huang Y, Yao F, et al. Public awareness and attitudes toward biobank and sample donation: A regional Chinese survey. Front Public Health. 2022:1025775. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1025775. 11. Mezinska S, Kaleja J, Mileiko I, et al. Public awareness of and attitudes towards research biobanks in Latvia. BMC Med Ethics. 2020:65. doi:10.1186/s12910­020­00506­1.

11. Bossert S, Kahrass H, Strech D. The Public’s Awareness of and Attitude Toward Research Biobanks — A Regional German Survey. Front Genet. 2018:190. doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00190.

12. Ahram M, Abdelgawad F, ElHafeez SA, et al. Perceptions, attitudes, and willingness of the public in low­ and middle­ income countries of the Arab region to participate in biobank research. BMC Med Ethics. 2022:122. doi:10.1186/s12910­022­00855­z.

13. Mwaka E, Horn L. Researchers’ perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research in south africa: a cross­ sectional study. JERHRE. 2019:307­17. doi:10.1177/1556264619866991.

14. De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non­welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2016:3. doi:10.1186/s40504­016­0036­4.

15. Tsvetkova LA, Eritsyan KY, Antonova NA. Russian students’ awareness of and attitudes toward donating to biobanks. Psychol Russ.: State Art. 2016;30­8. doi:10.11621/pir.2016.0203.

16. Singh S, Cadigan RJ, Moodley K. Research­ related stakeholders’ perspectives on sociocultural considerations in biobanking practice in South Africa. Biopreserv Biobank. 2023:81­9. doi:10.1089/bio.2021.0149.

17. Singh S, Moodley K. Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico­ legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;84. doi:10.1186/s12910­021­00645­z.

18. Luthuli M, Ngwenya N, Gumede D, et al. Participant recall and understandings of information on biobanking and future genomic research: experiences from a multi­ disease community­ based health screening and biobank platform in rural South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics. 2022:43. doi:10.1186/s12910­022­00782­z.

19. Broekstra R, Maeckelberghe ELM, Aris­ Meijer JL, et al. Motives of contributing personal data for health research: (non­) participation in a Dutch biobank. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;62. doi:10.1186/s12910­020­00504­3.

20. Antonova N, Eritsyan K. It is not a big deal: a qualitative study of clinical biobank donation experience and motives. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;7. doi:10.1186/s12910­022­00743­6.

21. Abdelhafiz AS, Sultan EA, Ziady HH, et al. What Egyptians think. Knowledge, attitude, and opinions of Egyptian patients towards biobanking issues. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;57. doi:10.1186/S12910­019­0394­6.

22. Lhousni S, Boulouiz R, Abda N, et al. Assessment of knowledge, attitudes and support of health professionals towards biobanks in eastern Morocco. Open J Epidemiol. 2019;191­201. doi:10.4236/ojepi.2019.93016.

23. Sedig LK, De Loney EH, Bailey SB, et al. Perspectives from a predominantly african american community about biobank research and a biobank consent form. Ethics amp; hum res. 2022;26­33. doi:10.1002/eahr.500134.

24. Raivola V, Snell K, Helén I, et al. Attitudes of blood donors to their sample and data donation for biobanking. Eur J Human Genetics: EJHG. 2019;1659­67. doi:10.1038/s41431­019­0434­1.

25. Savich RD, Tigges BB, Rios LI, et al. Willingness of women to participate in obstetrical and pediatric research involving biobanks. J Community Genet. 2020;215­23. doi:10.1007/s12687­01900446­3.

26. Gaskell G, Gottweis H, Starkbaum J, et al. Publics and biobanks: Pan­ European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;14­20. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.104.

27. Domaradzki J, Pawlikowski J. Public attitudes toward biobanking of human biological material for research purposes: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;2209. doi:10.3390/ijerph16122209.

28. Snell K, Tarkkala H. Questioning the rhetoric of a "willing population" in Finnish biobanking. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2019;4. doi:10.1186/s40504­019­0094­5.

29. Porteri C, Pasqualetti P, Togni E, et al. Public’s attitudes on participation in a biobank for research: an Italian survey. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;81. doi:10.1186/1472­6939­15­81.

30. Abou­ Zeid A, Silverman H, Shehata M, et al. Collection, storage and use of blood samples for future research: views of Egyptian patients expressed in a cross­ sectional survey. J Med Ethics. 2010;539­47. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.033100.

31. Abdelhafiz AS, Sultan EA, Ziady HH, et al. Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards biobanking issues. PloS One. 2021;e0248401. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248401.

32. Staunton C, Moodley K. Data mining and biological sample exportation from South Africa: A new wave of bioexploitation under the guise of clinical care? S Afr Med J = Suid­ Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde. 2016;136­8. doi:10.7196/SAMJ.2016.v106i2.10248.

33. Bloor M, Wood F. Keywords in qualitative methods. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2006. p. 208. ISBN: 9780761943303. doi:10.4135/9781849209403.

34. Yasmin F, Ali L, Banu B, et al. Understanding patients' experience living with diabetes type 2 and effective disease management: a qualitative study following a mobile health intervention in Bangladesh. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):29. doi:10.1186/S12913­019­4811­9.

35. Yong ASJ, Cheong MWL, Hamzah E, et al. A qualitative study of lived experiences and needs of advanced cancer patients in Malaysia: Gaps and steps forward. Qual Life Res. 2023;32(8):2391402. doi:10.1007/s11136­023­03401­5.

36. Henriksson A, Moen H, Skeppstedt M, et al. Synonym extraction and abbreviation expansion with ensembles of semantic spaces. J Biomed Semantics. 2014;5(1):6. doi:10.1186/2041­1480­5­6.

37. Liu K, Hogan WR, Crowley RS. Natural Language Processing methods and systems for biomedical ontology learning. J Biomed Inform. 2011;44(1):163­79. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2010.07.006.

38. Dixon­ Woods M, Kocman D, Brewster L, et al. A qualitative study of participants’ views on re­consent in a longitudinal biobank. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):22. doi:10.1186/s12910­017­0182­0.