Amanda Rush, Daniel R Catchpoole, Georget Reaiche-Miller, Thomas Gilbert, Wayne Ng, Peter Hamilton Watson, Jennifer A Byrne
{"title":"生物医学研究人员想要从生物库得到什么?在线调查结果。","authors":"Amanda Rush, Daniel R Catchpoole, Georget Reaiche-Miller, Thomas Gilbert, Wayne Ng, Peter Hamilton Watson, Jennifer A Byrne","doi":"10.1089/bio.2021.0084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Aims:</i></b> The purpose of biobanking is to provide biospecimens and associated data to researchers, yet the perspectives of biobank research users have been under-investigated. This study aimed to ascertain biobank research users' needs and opinions about biobanking services. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An online survey was developed, which requested information about researcher demographics, localities of biobanks accessed, methods of sourcing biospecimens, and opinions on topics including but not limited to, application processes, data availability, access fees, and return of research results. There were 27 multiple choice/check box questions, 4 questions with a 10-point Likert scale, and 8 questions with provision for further comment. A web link for the survey was distributed to researchers in late 2019/early 2020 in four Australian states: New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Respondents were generally satisfied with biobank application processes and the fit for purpose of received biospecimens/data. Nonetheless, most researchers (<i>n</i> = 61/99, 62%) reported creating their own collections owing to gaps in sample availability and a perceived increase in efficiency. Most accessed biobanks (<i>n</i> = 58/74, 78%) were in close proximity (local or intrastate) to the researcher. Most researchers had limited the scope of their research owing to difficulty of obtaining biospecimens (<i>n</i> = 55/86, 64%) and/or data (<i>n</i> = 52/85, 60%), with the top three responses for additional types of data required being \"more long term follow up data,\" \"more clinical data,\" and \"more linked government data.\" The top influence to use a particular biobank was cost, and the most frequently suggested improvement was reduced direct \"cost of obtaining biospecimens.\" <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Biobanks that do not meet the needs of their end-users are unlikely to be optimally utilized or sustainable. This survey provides valuable insights to guide biobanks and other stakeholders, such as developing marketing and client engagement plans to encourage local research users and discouraging the creation of unnecessary new collections.</p>","PeriodicalId":49231,"journal":{"name":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","volume":" ","pages":"271-282"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Do Biomedical Researchers Want from Biobanks? Results of an Online Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Rush, Daniel R Catchpoole, Georget Reaiche-Miller, Thomas Gilbert, Wayne Ng, Peter Hamilton Watson, Jennifer A Byrne\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/bio.2021.0084\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Aims:</i></b> The purpose of biobanking is to provide biospecimens and associated data to researchers, yet the perspectives of biobank research users have been under-investigated. This study aimed to ascertain biobank research users' needs and opinions about biobanking services. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An online survey was developed, which requested information about researcher demographics, localities of biobanks accessed, methods of sourcing biospecimens, and opinions on topics including but not limited to, application processes, data availability, access fees, and return of research results. There were 27 multiple choice/check box questions, 4 questions with a 10-point Likert scale, and 8 questions with provision for further comment. A web link for the survey was distributed to researchers in late 2019/early 2020 in four Australian states: New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Respondents were generally satisfied with biobank application processes and the fit for purpose of received biospecimens/data. Nonetheless, most researchers (<i>n</i> = 61/99, 62%) reported creating their own collections owing to gaps in sample availability and a perceived increase in efficiency. Most accessed biobanks (<i>n</i> = 58/74, 78%) were in close proximity (local or intrastate) to the researcher. Most researchers had limited the scope of their research owing to difficulty of obtaining biospecimens (<i>n</i> = 55/86, 64%) and/or data (<i>n</i> = 52/85, 60%), with the top three responses for additional types of data required being \\\"more long term follow up data,\\\" \\\"more clinical data,\\\" and \\\"more linked government data.\\\" The top influence to use a particular biobank was cost, and the most frequently suggested improvement was reduced direct \\\"cost of obtaining biospecimens.\\\" <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Biobanks that do not meet the needs of their end-users are unlikely to be optimally utilized or sustainable. This survey provides valuable insights to guide biobanks and other stakeholders, such as developing marketing and client engagement plans to encourage local research users and discouraging the creation of unnecessary new collections.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biopreservation and Biobanking\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"271-282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biopreservation and Biobanking\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2021.0084\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2021.0084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
What Do Biomedical Researchers Want from Biobanks? Results of an Online Survey.
Aims: The purpose of biobanking is to provide biospecimens and associated data to researchers, yet the perspectives of biobank research users have been under-investigated. This study aimed to ascertain biobank research users' needs and opinions about biobanking services. Methods: An online survey was developed, which requested information about researcher demographics, localities of biobanks accessed, methods of sourcing biospecimens, and opinions on topics including but not limited to, application processes, data availability, access fees, and return of research results. There were 27 multiple choice/check box questions, 4 questions with a 10-point Likert scale, and 8 questions with provision for further comment. A web link for the survey was distributed to researchers in late 2019/early 2020 in four Australian states: New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia. Results: Respondents were generally satisfied with biobank application processes and the fit for purpose of received biospecimens/data. Nonetheless, most researchers (n = 61/99, 62%) reported creating their own collections owing to gaps in sample availability and a perceived increase in efficiency. Most accessed biobanks (n = 58/74, 78%) were in close proximity (local or intrastate) to the researcher. Most researchers had limited the scope of their research owing to difficulty of obtaining biospecimens (n = 55/86, 64%) and/or data (n = 52/85, 60%), with the top three responses for additional types of data required being "more long term follow up data," "more clinical data," and "more linked government data." The top influence to use a particular biobank was cost, and the most frequently suggested improvement was reduced direct "cost of obtaining biospecimens." Conclusion: Biobanks that do not meet the needs of their end-users are unlikely to be optimally utilized or sustainable. This survey provides valuable insights to guide biobanks and other stakeholders, such as developing marketing and client engagement plans to encourage local research users and discouraging the creation of unnecessary new collections.
期刊介绍:
Biopreservation and Biobanking is the first journal to provide a unifying forum for the peer-reviewed communication of recent advances in the emerging and evolving field of biospecimen procurement, processing, preservation and banking, distribution, and use. The Journal publishes a range of original articles focusing on current challenges and problems in biopreservation, and advances in methods to address these issues related to the processing of macromolecules, cells, and tissues for research.
In a new section dedicated to Emerging Markets and Technologies, the Journal highlights the emergence of new markets and technologies that are either adopting or disrupting the biobank framework as they imprint on society. The solutions presented here are anticipated to help drive innovation within the biobank community.
Biopreservation and Biobanking also explores the ethical, legal, and societal considerations surrounding biobanking and biorepository operation. Ideas and practical solutions relevant to improved quality, efficiency, and sustainability of repositories, and relating to their management, operation and oversight are discussed as well.