Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37481540›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

To donate or not to donate? Future healthcare professionals' opinions on biobanking of human biological material for research purposes.

Jan Domaradzki, Justyna Czekajewska, Dariusz Walkowiak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy: Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

3 authors.

Jan DomaradzkiDepartment of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Rokietnicka 7, St., Poznań, 60-806, Poland. jandomar@ump.edu.pl.ORCID 0000-0002-9710-832X
Justyna CzekajewskaDepartment of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Rokietnicka 7, St., Poznań, 60-806, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2833-8815
Dariusz WalkowiakDepartment of Organization and Management in Health Care, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8874-2401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last few decades biobanks have been recognised as institutions that may revolutionise biomedical research and the development of personalised medicine. Poland, however, still lacks clear regulations regarding the running of biobanks and the conducting of biomedical research. While the awareness of the general public regarding biobanks is low, healthcare professions and medical students also lack basic knowledge regarding biobanks, and such ignorance may affect their support for biobanks.

methodsThis study is aimed at assessing the knowledge and attitudes of future healthcare professionals towards the donation of human biological material for research purposes and is based on a sample of 865 Polish medical students at Poznań University of Medical Sciences.

resultsThis research has shown that the awareness of medical students' regarding biobanks is low. It has also shown that while the majority of future healthcare professionals enrolled in this study supported the idea of biobank research and declared themselves willing to donate, still many students felt ambivalent about the biobanking of human biological material for research purposes and expressed concerns over biobanking research. While the primarily motivation to participate in biobank research was the desire to help advance science and to develop innovative therapies, the most common reason for a refusal was the fear that the government, insurance companies or employers, might have access to the samples. Concerns over unethical use of samples and data safety were also prevalent. More than half of students opted for a study-specific model of consent and only a few opted for broad consent.

conclusionsThis research suggests that a lack of knowledge about biobanks, their role and activities may affect medical students' support for biobanks and their active participation in the collection and management of biospecimens for research purposes. Since in the future medical, nursing and pharmacy students will be involved in the collection, storage, testing and analysis of biospecimens from their patients, medical students in all professional fields should be trained regarding the concept, purposes and operational procedures of biobanks, as well as the ethical, legal and social implications of biobank research.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksStudents, MedicalAttitudeDelivery of Health CareEmotionsHumansBiobankingBiobanksBiomedical researchDonationEthical, legal and social issuesFuture healthcare professionalsMedical studentsTissues

Identifiers

PMID37481540
PMCPMC10363302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.