ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Healthcare professionals and scientists' collaboration with biobanks: a pilot study on the assessment of knowledge and attitudes toward biospecimen donation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Self-collected biospecimen consent and return rates in a population-based study among women with ovarian cancer: insights from the ORCHiD study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Difficulties in the biobank progress are often associated with insufficient public awareness, but it is also worth paying attention to healthcare and science professionals who play an important role in the development of this area. This article presents results of the research on awareness toward biobanking and motivation to collaborate among employees of 3 medical and scientific organizations in Russia. Methods: The anonymous survey was carried out via an online platform. The research included 176 healthcare and science professionals. To assess the differences between the groups the Pearson Chi-square test and the contingency coefficient were used. To find correlations between nominal and interval variables the Eta criterion was applied. Results: It was found that 88.1% of respondents were aware of biobanking in general, however, 15.0% were not aware of a biobank in their organization or had difficulty in answering this question. The experience of cooperation with biobanks was not particularly extensive - more than half of the respondents (60.3%) indicated that they had never contacted biobanks. 11.9% of participants became donors themselves. 35.0% - suggested to their friends and patients to become donors, while 86.2% were willing to do this in the future. The study showed that the respondents who already had experience working with biobanks, as well as those who themselves act as a donor, rated the importance of their activities higher. Conclusion: It is important to increase not only awareness but also motivation to cooperate with biobanks and be willing to take on different roles.
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.