ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Patient and IRB perspectives on biobank consent models: implications for international policy from Taiwan.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiobank consent models are contested globally. The EU's GDPR Article 89, the US revised Common Rule (2018), and international guidelines offer divergent approaches to balancing participant autonomy and research efficiency. Despite ongoing policy debate, empirical evidence comparing research ethics oversight bodies (IRBs) with potential participants remains limited, particularly in Asia, where rapid biobank development has proceeded with limited stakeholder input. Taiwan's Human Biobank Management Act provides an opportunity to examine whether governance frameworks adequately address diverse stakeholder concerns.
methodsThis cross-sectional survey compared the perspectives of 154 patients and 147 institutional review board (IRB) members in Taiwan regarding biospecimen consent preferences, privacy concerns, governance-related attitudes, and willingness to provide biospecimens. Participants completed a questionnaire including a single item assessing willingness to provide biospecimens, a 6-item privacy concern scale, and a 4-item governance-related confidence/expectations index derived from governance-related items in the original questionnaire, as well as items on consent model preferences. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of willingness to provide biospecimens.
resultsPatients more frequently endorsed tiered consent (61.0% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.012) and were more willing to provide biospecimens (61.7% vs. 47.6%, p = 0.014) than IRB members. Privacy concerns did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05), and governance-related index scores were also similar across groups. In the multivariable analysis, IRB membership was independently associated with lower willingness to provide biospecimens (adjusted odds ratio AOR = 0.52, p = 0.010), whereas higher governance-related index scores were associated with greater willingness (AOR = 2.08, p = 0.010). Other variables, including age, sex, marital status, education level, prior research participation, and high privacy concern, were not significant predictors.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that willingness to participate in biobank research is shaped by stakeholder role and governance-related attitudes, not by consent model preferences alone. Consent models should therefore be considered one component of a broader governance framework that also includes transparency, oversight, and privacy protections. Because the governance-related index likely captures multiple related dimensions, including governance expectations, support for regulatory safeguards, and confidence in oversight mechanisms, rather than trust alone, the observed associations should be interpreted cautiously. Future research using psychometrically validated measures of trust, governance literacy, and risk perception will be important for disentangling these constructs and confirming the nature of the observed relationships.
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.