Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413662›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

"As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study.

Sonia Yip, Jennifer Fleming, Heather L Shepherd, Adam Walczak, Jonathan Clark, Phyllis Butow

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 'A No-Brainer, but Not a Simple Decision': A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences of Tissue Donation for Research in Rare Craniospinal Tumour Pathways.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sonia YipSydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia sonia.yip@ctc.usyd.edu.au.
Jennifer FlemingSydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Heather L ShepherdPsycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Adam WalczakCanTeen Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Jonathan ClarkCentral Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Phyllis ButowCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3562-6954

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionConsent to biobanking remains controversial, with little empirical data to guide policy and practice. This study aimed to explore the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of both oncology patients and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding biobanking. MATERIALS AND

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with oncology patients and HCPs purposively selected from five Australian hospitals. Patients were invited to give biobanking consent as part of a clinical trial and/or for future research were eligible. HCPs were eligible if involved in consenting patients to biobanking or to donate specimens to clinical trials.

resultsTwenty-two patients participated, with head and neck (36%) and prostate (18%) the most common cancer diagnoses; all had consented to biobanking. Twenty-two HCPs participated, from across eight cancer streams and five disciplines. Themes identified were (a) biobanking is a "no brainer"; (b) altruism or scientific enquiry; (c) trust in clinicians, science, and institutions; (d) no consent-just do it; (e) respecting patient choice ("opt-out"); (f) respectful timing of the request; (g) need for emotional/family support; (h) context of the biobanking request matters; and (i) factors for biobanking success. DISCUSSION: These findings reinforced previous findings regarding high public trust in, and support for, biobanking. An initial opt-in consent approach with the option of later opt-out was favored by patients to respect and recognize donor generosity, whereas HCPs preferred an upfront opt-out model. Factors impacting biobanking success included the context of the request for use in a trial or specific research question, pre-existing patient and HCP rapport, a local institution champion, and infrastructure. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients and health care professionals (HCPs) who experienced cancer biobanking consent were overwhelmingly supportive of biobanking. The motivations and approaches to seeking consent were largely mirrored between the groups. The findings of this study support the opt-in model of biobanking favored by patients; however, HCPs preferred an opt-out model. Both groups recognize the importance of making the request for biobanking at an appropriate time, preferably with emotional or family support, and respecting the timing of the request and privacy of the patient. Biobanking success can be promoted by hospital departments with a research focus by identifying an institutional biobanking champion and ensuring local infrastructure is available.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaBiological Specimen BanksCounselingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInformed ConsentMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedMotivationNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchAttitudesBiological specimen banksHealth care personnelInformed consentOncologyPatients

Identifiers

PMID30413662
PMCPMC6656517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.