ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
It is not a big deal: a qualitative study of clinical biobank donation experience and motives.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision-making experience for second donation in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donors: a descriptive qualitative study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals and scientists' collaboration with biobanks: a pilot study on the assessment of knowledge and attitudes toward biospecimen donation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Establishing a Pregnancy Lyme Disease Biobank.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Biobanking and consenting to research: a qualitative thematic analysis of young people's perspectives in the North East of England.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Willingness of Older Canadians with HIV to Participate in HIV Cure Research Near and After the End of Life: A Mixed-Method Study.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe success of biobanking is directly linked to the willingness of people to donate their biological materials for research and storage. Ethical issues related to patient consent are an essential component of the current biobanking agenda. The majority of data available are focused on population-based biobanks in USA, Canada and Western Europe. The donation decision process and its ethical applications in clinical populations and populations in countries with other cultural contexts are very limited. This study aimed to evaluate the decision-making experience of the clinical biobank donors, as well as psychological and social motivators and deterrents of this decision and associated ethical risks.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in two medical institutions, in St Petersburg (Russia), in 2016-2017, among 13 donors of a clinical biobank (pregnant women, cardiac patients, and patients with multiple sclerosis) and three donation organisers-medical specialists involved in recruiting donors for a clinical biobank. Analysis of interview data was based on qualitative content analysis.
resultsDonors of a clinical biobank express beliefs in the absence of risks associated with the donation. The primary motivators for donating to the biobank were: prosocial, indirect reciprocity (response to or anticipation of an act in kind by a third party), intrinsic motivation (to enhance their self-esteem and satisfying their curiosity about the donation process), and comparability with personal values. A high level of trust in biomedical research and the particular physician can contribute to a favourable decision. The overall decision-making process regarding the biobank donation could be described as quick and not based on a careful reading of informed consent documents. The integration of biobank donation decision-making in the process of medical care might prompt patient to donate to biobank without proper consideration. The specific type of therapeutic misconception-the presence of unrealistic hope that donation could provide a direct benefit for a third person in need was discovered.
conclusionsPatients recruited to a clinical biobank in Russia have virtually no concerns as to the storage of their biomaterials. The donation decision is mainly motivated by prosocial attitudes and other factors that are similar to the motivating factors of blood donation. The fact of going through inpatient treatment and poor differentiation between donation for other people's benefit and for research purposes can make the process of obtaining consent more ethically problematic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.