Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Pronicki, Ł.; Czech, M.;
Gujski, M.; Boguszewska, N.D.
Awareness, Attitudes and
Willingness to Donate Biological
Samples to a Biobank: A Survey of a
Representative Sample of Polish
Citizens. Healthcare 2023,11, 2714.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
healthcare11202714
Academic Editor: Krzysztof Kus
Received: 31 August 2023
Revised: 6 October 2023
Accepted: 9 October 2023
Published: 11 October 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
healthcare
Article
Awareness, Attitudes and Willingness to Donate Biological
Samples to a Biobank: A Survey of a Representative Sample of
Polish Citizens
Łukasz Pronicki 1, *, Marcin Czech 2, Mariusz Gujski 1and Natalia D. Boguszewska 1
1Department of Public Health, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warszawa, Poland
2Institute of Mother and Child, 01-211 Warszawa, Poland
*Correspondence: lukasz.pronicki@abm.gov.pl; Tel.: +48-889-449-820
Abstract: Biotechnology is developing at an ever-increasing pace, and the progressive computeriza-
tion of health care and research is making it increasingly easy to share data. One of the fastest growing
areas is biobanking. However, even with the best equipment and the best trained staff, a biobank will
be useless without donors. For this reason, we have decided to gauge Polish citizens’ awareness and
attitudes towards biobanking and their willingness to donate biological samples. For this purpose the
survey was conducted among a nationwide group of 1052 Poles aged 18 and over where the totals
for gender, age and place of residence were selected according to their representation in the total
population of adult Poles. The survey was conducted using the Computer Assisted Web Interview
(CAWI) technique. Approximately two thirds of respondents N= 701 (66.6%) indicated that they had
heard of scientific studies in which samples of biological material such as blood, saliva or urine are
collected. More than half of respondents (N= 613, 58.3%) had a positive opinion regarding scientific
research in which samples of biological material are taken. Only N= 220 (20.9%) of respondents had
previously encountered the term biobanking. More than a half N= 687 (65.3%) of respondents would
participate in a scientific study that biobanked biological material and health information. Almost
half of the respondents (48.0%) would like specific consent to be used in biobanking. In our study we
observed a negligible correlation between socio-demographic factors and a willingness to donate
biological material to a biobank. Considering the results presented above, the level of knowledge and
awareness of biobanks, and their role in scientific research and the health care system, among Polish
citizens is low and requires education and information activities.
Keywords: awareness; attitudes; biobanking; biobank; tissue donation; willingness
1. Introduction
1.1. Role of International Organizations in Biobanking
Biobanking is one of many key processes related to the development of the health
care system [
1
]. Collecting and storing biological samples allows for the building of
repositories that can be used to search for new diagnostic and therapeutic methods, thus
contributing to the development of health care systems both in Poland, Europe and the
world. Integrated approach to research allows to uncover intricate connections between
genetic factors, environmental influences, and the development of various diseases, paving
the way for more personalized and effective healthcare strategies [
2
]. Biobanks are high-
tech scientific units that collect human biological material and a lot of data related to the
health of the donors of this material. These facilities are essential for the development
of personalized medicine, that is, a branch of medicine that takes into account the indi-
vidual needs of the patient, taking into account his or her characteristics at the level of
the genome, metabolome and environment in which he or she lives. The development
of biobanking and personalized medicine should, by design, seek to change treatment
algorithms, where broad preventive health care comes to the fore [
3
,
4
]. The international
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11202714 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/healthcare
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 2 of 20
organization for biobanking stakeholders is the International Society for Biological and
Environmental Repositories (ISBER). ISBER’s mission is to increase expertise and quality
among biobanks and biorepositories around the world [
5
]. As part of its activities, it
provides education, develops best practices and works to promote biorepositories to the
public [
6
,
7
]. It also organizes symposia and conferences where professionals and scientists
can expand their knowledge and discuss current issues [
8
]. ISBER also engages in issues
related to the involvement of potential donors by publishing publicly available guidelines
on the ethical, legal and social aspects of collecting biological material [
8
,
9
]. As of 2023,
ISBER has
1059 members
from 60 countries, including 412 individual members, 137 small
organizations, 63 medium-sized organizations, 41 large organizations and 1 very large
organization [
8
]. In Europe, the organization for biobanking stakeholders is the Biobanking
and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure—European Research Infrastructure
Consortium (BBMRI—ERIC), which was established in 2013 [
10
]. The enabling docu-
ment for the establishment of BBMR-ERIC was Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of
25 June 2009
on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure
Consortium (ERIC), introduced by the European Union [
11
]. This document allowed the
establishment of consortia among EU member states with the main task of developing
research infrastructure to promote innovation, knowledge and technology transfer. It is
worth mentioning that the main task of an ERIC established under this regulation should
be the establishment and operation of research infrastructure on a non-profit basis. In
order to promote innovation and the transfer of knowledge and technology, the ERIC
should be allowed to carry out limited economic activities, provided that they are closely
related to its main task [
11
]. BBMRI-ERIC is a consortium currently comprising 23 countries
and 1 international organization [
10
,
12
]. The goal of BBMRI-ERIC is to bring together all
the main stakeholders from the biobanking field—researchers, biobankers, industry and
patients—to develop biomedical research [
10
,
12
]. The consortium offers quality manage-
ment services, support with ethical, legal and societal issues, and a number of online tools
and software solutions for biobankers and researchers. The goal of BBMRI—ERIC is to
make new treatments possible [
10
,
12
]. BBMRI is also involved in a number of initiatives
related to the development of biobanking, some of the most important include European
Biotech week, part of the international Global Biotech week initiative, BioTechX [
13
] and
the preparation and development of a number of guidelines for biobanks. BBMRI—ERIC
is also very involved in work on the ethical, legal and social aspects of biobanking; as
part of its activities it conducts webinars [
13
] and publishes guidelines on such issues
as obtaining and biobanking material from underage donors, or drawing attention to a
number of aspects related to the protection of donors’ personal data [14].
1.2. Status of Biobanking in Poland
In Poland, the human biological material is stored for research purposes at almost
every medical university in the country, and in most scientific institutions carrying out
research projects in the field of biomedicine [
15
]. In 2016, Poland joined BBMRI-ERIC
to support the development of biobanking in Poland. Currently, as part of its BBMRI-
ERIC membership, Poland is carrying out a number of tasks, including standardizing
all sample procedures as well as data collection and storage; developing a universal IT
infrastructure; promoting common quality control standards for all biobanks in the national
network; analyzing the ethical, legal and societal needs related to research on human
biological material; informing about the idea of biobanking human samples for research
purposes among the public; and building and developing, since 2017, the Polish Network
of Biobanks (PNB) [
15
–
17
]. The PNB’s mission is to integrate the entities involved in
biobanking biological material, mainly from humans, and to facilitate the establishment of
scientific collaborations. PNB members and observers can benefit from substantive support
in developing their biobanks and biorepositories, as well as exchange information about
their biological samples on a central IT platform [
18
]. PNB currently includes more than
50 units spread across the country, 6 of which are certified by BBMRI [
19
]. A survey of
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 3 of 20
biobanks/biorepositories in Poland was conducted in 2021. In total, 65 of the 400 to whom
the questionnaire was sent out fully completed the survey. A total of 60 of them collect
human biological material and/or related data. Units collecting human biological material
collect blood samples, cells, tissue samples and nucleic acids. Almost two thirds (39) of
these units collect patient data related to the biological material being collected. It is also
worth noting that 7% of units have collections larger than 100,000 samples, 17% of units
have collections in the range of 10,001 to 100,000 samples and 28% of units have collections
in the range of 1001 to 10,000 samples. The remainder have smaller collections [
20
]. In 2023,
based on information available on the PNB website, it is possible to search for more than
500,000 samples from more than 140,000 donors in the eight biobanks that contribute their
data to the system. It is possible to find 27 collections of biological material in the search
engine [
21
]. In Poland, around 90% of biobanks belong to the public sector, and 60% of
biobanks have declared their willingness to cooperate and share their biological material
and data [20].
1.3. Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Biobanking
While biobanks are an significant resource for scientific research and ultimately the
healthcare system, there are also ethical, legal and social concerns about their use, such as
donor privacy and confidentiality, data protection and the commercialization of genetic
products or technologies [
22
–
26
]. Conducting scientific research using biobanked biological
material is incredibly challenging from an ethical perspective. Developments in biotechnol-
ogy and medicine theoretically allow the use of biological material stored in biobanks in
new scientific projects. Such action, however, contradicts the ethical principles we have
developed as a society. It is unacceptable to use material received from a donor without the
donor’s prior consent [
23
,
27
], and for this reason there have been moves in the scientific
community to develop and expand the new types of consent that the donor of the material
gives [
23
,
24
]. However, this still raises a number of questions, because a potential donor,
despite giving broad consent, would not necessarily want to agree that his material be used
in a particular study. On the other hand, not using already collected material also raises
ethical concerns; not using it and collecting material from new donors exposes them to
participation in unnecessary treatments or procedures. For this reason, modern methods
of consent collection are constantly being developed and evaluated [
23
,
24
]. Legal issues
also pose significant challenges for biobanking and conducting scientific research using
collected biological material. The development of new technologies is often much faster
than the development of legislation [
22
,
24
]. For this reason, we often face challenges in
determining how a particular scientific study should be treated in legal terms and which
pieces of legislation to apply [
22
]. This poses a major challenge for researchers and ethics
committees. In Polish law, biobanking itself is also unregulated, which significantly hinders
the development of biobanking. On the one hand, there are no legal regulations that say
specifically how things should be done, and on the other hand, biobanks should be able to
rely on regulations and work according to existing rules [
22
]. Another prominent issue is
concerning the social aspects of biobanking. Public awareness and acceptance of research
and biobanking is crucial for increasing donor commitment to donating their biological
material [
26
,
28
]. For potential donors transparency, securing their data, confidentiality and
the expediency of potential projects are important [
26
,
29
]. Society has much more confi-
dence in the public than in the private sector [
25
]. Nevertheless, we are currently facing
a big challenge. The development of modern technologies and medicinal products will
probably always require the participation of the commercial sector at some stage [
25
,
30
].
Therefore, if we want the world’s repositories to be used in the search for new medicinal
products, we must clearly define the rules of cooperation between public biobanks and the
commercial sector. The rules of this cooperation raise many concerns among the public,
for this reason it is necessary to be in dialogue with and develop solutions to safeguard
the interests of potential donors [
30
,
31
]. For biobanks to be useful, they must be fed with
information from donors who are willing to participate in scientific research and donate
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 4 of 20
their biological material. Therefore, it was decided that we should conduct a survey on a
representative group of adult Poles to determine their awareness, attitudes and willingness
to donate their biological material and medical data to a biobank. We also decided to check
what the opinion of Polish citizens is on informed consent and the level of their trust in
biobanking stakeholders. The information obtained will allow for a better understanding
of the needs, expectations and concerns of potential donors and will help build conditions
for effective communication between biobank staff and potential donors.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
Our aim was to determine the public awareness of biobanking in Poland, to determine
the willingness of potential donors to donate their biological material and to determine
what factors influence their decisions. We also decided to check the level of public trust
in particular stakeholders related to biobanking. For this reason, we decided to conduct
a survey on a representative group of Poles. In order to collect the data, we decided to
use the Computer Assisted Web Interviews (CAWI) method because of its effectiveness
and its ability to reach the survey population. A questionnaire was developed and it was
then commissioned to Ariadna, a national independent research panel. Received data were
statistically analyzed.
2.2. Participants and Setting
The survey was conducted between January and February 2023, among a nationwide
group of 1052 Poles aged 18 and over where the totals for gender, age and place of residence
were selected according to their representation in the total population of adult Poles. Each
respondent was subject to verification upon registration and was guaranteed full anonymity
and confidentiality of their personal information.
The survey was not conducted using random selection methods, where respondents
are collected from ad hoc roundups via pop-ups displayed on the Internet to random
people, or via mass mailings or online surveys.
2.3. Research Tools
The questionnaire contained 23 questions about Poles’ knowledge, opinions, beliefs
and attitudes toward biobanking and scientific research in which biological material is
collected. The questionnaire for the survey was based on open-access questions used in the
2010 Eurobarometer survey [
32
] and questions used in the survey on public willingness
to participate in biobanking in Switzerland published in 2021 by C. Brall et al. [
33
]. The
questions were translated into Polish, consulted by experts and adapted to the specifics of
Polish society. The questionnaire examined the level of awareness of biobanking, factors
influencing the decision to donate biological material to a biobank, determined what the
public’s expectations are regarding the supervision of biological material and data in
biobanks, and examined attitudes and determined what factors influence parents’ decisions
to donate their children’s biological material to a biobank. This publication only describes
the areas of the level of awareness, the factors affecting the decision to donate material, and
identifies public expectations.
2.4. Data Collection
The survey was conducted using the CAWI method with the help of Ariadna, a
nationwide survey panel company. The Ariadna company allows researchers to carry out
nationwide studies, surveys, and experimental research embracing the highest standards
of rigor and integrity. During the implementation of the survey the Ariadna panel had a
current and valid Interviewer Quality Control Program certificate [
34
] confirming the high
quality of the research services provided, which is issued on the basis of an independent
audit carried out annually by the Polish Association of Public Opinion and Marketing
Research Firms.
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 5 of 20
Respondents receive an invitation to complete the survey sent via email, to the email
address they provided when registering with the Ariadna panel. Respondents receive a
message with a coded and personalized link to the survey. Real people with established
identities took part in the survey. Upon completion of the survey, Ariadna provided a
cleaned and anonymized dataset.
2.5. Ethical Issues
On 16 January 2023, through decision No. AKBE/3/2023, the study and the question-
naire received a positive opinion from the Ethics Committee at the Medical University of
Warsaw. The survey data was completely anonymous and did not allow any identification
of individual respondents.
2.6. Data Analysis
Continuous variables were summarized using mean and standard deviation. In
addition, median, interquartile range, range and kurtosis were presented. For nominal
variables, counts and percentages were used to summarize. Spearman’s Q was used for
correlation analysis. A p-value (Hollander and Wolfe) was used to assess the significance of
correlations. Due to multiple comparisons, a Benjamini–Hochberg correction was applied
to the p-value. The relationship was considered significant at p< 0.05. The analysis was
conducted in the R language environment.
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
One thousand and fifty-two respondents (N= 1052) took part in the survey. The aver-
age age of respondents was 46.37 years (SD = 15.92). Slightly more women (
N= 567, 53.9%
)
participated in the survey than men (N= 485, 46.1%). More than half of the respondents are
in a relationship (N= 573, 54.5%), and about a third of the participants said they were single
(N= 310, 29.5%). The remaining respondents are divorced (N= 108, 10.3%) or widowed
(
N= 61, 5.8%
). Most respondents have a university degree (master’s degree N= 357, 33.9%
or bachelor’s degree N= 87, 8.3%). Most respondents live in rural areas (N= 390, 37.1%).
Detailed demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.
Variable Category Result
Number of respondents N1052
Sex N(%) Female 567 (53.9)
Male 485 (46.1)
Age N(%) 18–24 106 (10.1)
25–34 205 (19.5)
35–44 170 (16.2)
45–54 202 (19.2)
55 years or more 369 (35.1)
Age mean (SD) 46.37 (15.92)
Place of residence N(%) Rural area 390 (37.1)
Up to 20,000 residents 138 (13.1)
20,001–50,000 residents 94 (8.9)
50,001–100,000 residents 111 (10.6)
100,001–200,000 residents 84 (8.0)
200,001–500,000 residents 101 (9.6)
Above 500,000 residents 134 (12.7)
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 6 of 20
Table 1. Cont.
Variable Category Result
Education N(%) Primary or Junior high school 127 (12.1)
High school 366 (34.8)
Post-high school 115 (10.9)
Bachelor’s degree 87 (8.3)
Master’s degree 357 (33.9)
Marital Status N(%) Singel 310 (29.5)
Married or partnership 573 (54.5)
Divorced 108 (10.3)
Widowed 61 (5.8)
3.2. Awareness of Research Using Biological Material and Biobanking
In 2023, N= 701 (66.6%) respondents indicated that they had heard of scientific studies
in which samples of biological material such as blood, saliva or urine are collected. Only
N= 146 (13.9%)
respondents were unsure or could not remember if they had ever heard of
such research. Only N= 220 (20.9%) of respondents had previously encountered the term
biobanking, and as many as N= 674 (64.1%) had never heard of it before (Table 2).
Table 2. Awareness of biobanking.
Variable Yes N(%) No N(%) Don’t Know N(%)
I have heard of scientific research
using biological samples 701 (66.6) 205 (19.5) 146 (13.9)
I have heard of biobanking before 220 (20.9) 674 (64.1) 158 (15.0)
More than half of respondents (N= 613, 58.2%) have a positive opinion regarding
scientific research in which samples of biological material are taken (N= 441, 41.9%—rather
positive, N= 172, 16.3%—positive), N= 371 (35.3%) respondents have no opinion on the
subject and only N= 68 (6.5%) have a negative opinion (N= 50, 4.8%—rather negative,
N= 18, 1.7%—negative) (Table 3).
Table 3. Respondents’ opinion on scientific research using biological samples.
Opinion on Scientific Research Using Biological Samples (Such as Blood, Saliva, Urine, Hair or Tissues) Results N(%)
Negative 18 (1.7)
Rather negative 50 (4.8)
Rather positive 441 (41.9)
Positive 172 (16.3)
Difficult to say/I have no opinion 371 (35.3)
The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the proposed definitions they
thought best described the biobanking process. N= 441 (41.9%) respondents indicated that
in their opinion, biobanking is a process in which body fluid or tissue samples, genetic
data and medical data (medical history, laboratory results, etc.) are collected and stored in
order to better understand health and disease progression. As many as N= 390 (37.1%)
respondents did not know which of the proposed definitions best described the biobanking
process (Table 4).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 7 of 20
Table 4. Definition of biobanking according to respondents.
Definition Results N(%)
Biobanking is the process by which body fluid or tissue samples, genetic data and medical data
(medical history, laboratory results, etc.) are collected and stored in order to better understand
health and disease progression.
441 (41.9)
Biobanking is the process by which seed samples are collected to safeguard them in the event of
a global environmental disaster. 133 (12.6)
Biobanking is a process in which data on a person’s social and financial situation and medical data
(medical history, laboratory results, etc.) are collected and stored in order to better understand the
impact of financial situation on health status.
56 (5.3)
None of these 32 (3.0)
I don’t know 390 (37.1)
3.3. Knowledge and Opinion on Consent in Scientific Research
More than half (N= 619, 58.8%) of the respondents believed that they have to give
consent for the biobanking their biological samples, but only N= 566 (53.8%) believed
that they can withdraw such consent. It is noteworthy that as many as N= 360 (34.2%)
respondents did not know whether they have to give consent for biobanking and N= 443
(42.1%) did not know whether they can withdraw the consent already given (Table 5).
Table 5. Awareness of respondents regarding consent in biobanking.
Variable Yes N(%) No N(%) Don’t Know N(%)
Donor consent is needed for biobanking
619 (58.8) 73 (6.9) 360 (34.2)
Donor may withdraw consent 566 (53.8) 43 (4.1) 443 (42.1)
The survey described to respondents a hypothetical situation in which a biobank
would like to use their donated samples in one or more future scientific studies. They were
then asked to indicate one of the following responses as to when and what they should give
their consent to: each time the samples were to be used for a new project; depending on the
scope/type of project; only once at the time the samples were donated; or no opinion. Most
of the respondents believe that a biobank should ask for consent every time samples are to
be used for a new project—specific consent (N= 505, 48.0%). According to N= 149 (14.2%)
respondents, it is sufficient for them to give their consent once for the use of their samples
in research projects—broad consent (Table 6).
Table 6. Type of consent preferred by respondents.
Type of Consent Specific Consent Tiered Consent Broad Consent No Opinion
Result N(%) 505 (48.0) 188 (17.9) 149 (14.2) 210 (20.0)
Respondents considered the most important information needed to make a decision
to donate their biological material are who will have access to their data and samples
(
N= 415 39.4%
); what security measures are in place to ensure the privacy and protection
of the samples (N= 407, 38.7%); and what research will be conducted using their samples
(N= 386, 36.7%). Respondents considered the least important information to be who will
receive financial benefits as a result of the research (N= 228, 21.7%) and who will receive
non-financial benefits as a result of the research (N= 196, 18.6%) (Figure 1).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 8 of 20
Healthcare 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
= 415 39.4%); what security measures are in place to ensure the privacy and protection of
the samples (N = 407, 38.7%); and what research will be conducted using their samples (N
= 386, 36.7%). Respondents considered the least important information to be who will re-
ceive financial benefits as a result of the research (N = 228, 21.7%) and who will receive
non-financial benefits as a result of the research (N = 196, 18.6%) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Overview of information respondents would like to receive before deciding to share their
biological material and data with a biobank.
3.4. Willingness to Participate in the Study and Factors Influencing the Decision to Donate
Biological Material
Nearly two thirds of respondents N = 687 (65.3%) would participate in a scientific
study that biobanked biological material and health information (Table 7).
Table 7. Respondents willingness to donate biological samples.
Variable Yes N (%) No N (%)
Willingness to donate biological samples 687 (65.3) 365 (34.7)
Those who agreed to participate in the study would be most willing to share samples
that they can collect themselves (saliva, hair, urine, cheek swab) (N = 515, 75.0%), a blood
sample (N = 47 0, 68.4 %) or sa mples o f bio logica l mater ial t hat mus t be c ollect ed by medica l
personnel (N = 384, 55.9%). Respondents are less willing to provide medical history (N =
318 46.3%), complete health forms (N = 301, 43.8%), family medical history (N = 174, 25.3%)
or health data from sports apps (N = 170, 24.7%). Only N = 51 (7.4%) respondents consid-
ered sharing the information they post on their social media (Figure 2).
Figure 1.
Overview of information respondents would like to receive before deciding to share their
biological material and data with a biobank.
3.4. Willingness to Participate in the Study and Factors Influencing the Decision to Donate
Biological Material
Nearly two thirds of respondents N= 687 (65.3%) would participate in a scientific
study that biobanked biological material and health information (Table 7).
Table 7. Respondents willingness to donate biological samples.
Variable Yes N(%) No N(%)
Willingness to donate biological samples 687 (65.3) 365 (34.7)
Those who agreed to participate in the study would be most willing to share samples
that they can collect themselves (saliva, hair, urine, cheek swab) (N= 515, 75.0%), a
blood sample (N= 470, 68.4%) or samples of biological material that must be collected
by medical personnel (N= 384, 55.9%). Respondents are less willing to provide medical
history (
N= 318 46.3%
), complete health forms (N= 301, 43.8%), family medical history
(
N= 174, 25.3%
) or health data from sports apps (N= 170, 24.7%). Only N= 51 (7.4%)
respondents considered sharing the information they post on their social media (Figure 2).
The greatest motivation for respondents to take part in a research study in which
information about their health would be biobanked is the personal benefits they could gain
from such a study (N= 430, 62.6%) or the benefits their family could gain (N= 374. 54.8%).
The least motivating factor is a general sense of duty, with only N= 76 (11.1%) respondents
taking this into account when making their decision (Figure 3).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 9 of 20
Healthcare 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22
Figure 2. Willingness to donate specific biological material or data.
The greatest motivation for respondents to take part in a research study in which
information about their health would be biobanked is the personal benefits they could
gain from such a study (N = 430, 62.6%) or the benefits their family could gain (N = 374.
54.8%). The least motivating factor is a general sense of duty, with only N = 76 (11.1%)
respondents taking this into account when making their decision (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Willingness to donate specific biological material or data.
Healthcare 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
Figure 3. Factors influencing a positive decision regarding biobanked information in a study.
Respondents who would participate in a scientific study conducted in a biobank
would be most interested in receiving basic laboratory results such as blood counts (N =
801, 76.1%) and information on how their lifestyle affects their risk of contracting a disease
(N = 725, 68.9%). They are least interested in general study results, with only slightly more
than half (N = 581, 55.2%) wanting such information (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Factors influencing a positive decision regarding biobanked information in a study.
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 10 of 20
Respondents who would participate in a scientific study conducted in a biobank
would be most interested in receiving basic laboratory results such as blood counts
(
N= 801, 76.1%
) and information on how their lifestyle affects their risk of contracting
a disease (
N= 725, 68.9%
). They are least interested in general study results, with only
slightly more than half (N= 581, 55.2%) wanting such information (Figure 4).
Healthcare 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22
Figure 4. Willingness to receive distinct types of research results.
3.5. Concerns
Respondents indicated that the negative factor that would most likely influence their
decision was the fear that their data would be used for commercial or marketing purposes
rather than for research (N = 389, 37.0%). Respondents were also concerned about the con-
fidentiality of their data (N = 350, 33.3%), and that the data they provided could be used
to discriminate against them or their family members (N = 282, 26.8%). Factors such as a
lack of time (N = 71, 6.7%), the effort involved in submiing biological material (N = 40,
3.8%) or general interest in scientific research (N = 39, 3.7%) influenced their decision to
take part in a study the least (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Willingness to receive distinct types of research results.
3.5. Concerns
Respondents indicated that the negative factor that would most likely influence their
decision was the fear that their data would be used for commercial or marketing purposes
rather than for research (N= 389, 37.0%). Respondents were also concerned about the
confidentiality of their data (N= 350, 33.3%), and that the data they provided could be used
to discriminate against them or their family members (N= 282, 26.8%). Factors such as a lack
of time (N= 71, 6.7%), the effort involved in submitting biological material (
N= 40, 3.8%
)
or general interest in scientific research (N= 39, 3.7%) influenced their decision to take part
in a study the least (Figure 5).
3.6. Expectations for Research Using Biological Material and Biobanking
The majority (N= 591, 56.2%) of respondents would like their samples to be stored in
a coded way—allowing them to be identified if needed. Most (N= 562; 53.4%) respondents
would like to personally own the samples stored in the biobank, or would agree that the
biobank itself should own the samples (N= 330; 31.4%). Respondents completely distrust
the government in this area, with only N= 17 (1.6%) people indicating that the government
should own the samples stored in the biobank (Table 8).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 11 of 20
Healthcare 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
Figure 5. Overview of concerns that respondents have regarding their decision to share the biolog-
ical samples and data with a biobank.
3.6. Expectations for Research Using Biological Material and Biobanking
The majority (N = 591, 56.2%) of respondents would like their samples to be stored in
a coded way—allowing them to be identified if needed. Most (N = 562; 53.4%) respondents
would like to personally own the samples stored in the biobank, or would agree that the
biobank itself should own the samples (N = 330; 31.4%). Respondents completely distrust
the government in this area, with only N = 17 (1.6%) people indicating that the government
should own the samples stored in the biobank (Table 8).
Figure 5.
Overview of concerns that respondents have regarding their decision to share the biological
samples and data with a biobank.
Table 8. Ownership of samples and data.
The Owner of the Data and Samples Found in the Biobank Should Be: Results N(%)
Me personally 562 (53.4)
Biobank 310 (29.5)
No opinion 165 (15.7)
Specific scientists who conduct research and make discoveries 161 (15.3)
Universities or organizations co-founding the biobank 84 (8.0)
Government 17 (1.6)
Other 3 (0.3)
No one 29 (2.8)
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 12 of 20
Respondents are most trusting of their general practitioner, with N= 213 (20.2%) peo-
ple fully trusting and N= 390 (37.1%) trusting that their general practitioner would ensure
the confidentiality and protection of the data and samples stored in the biobank if they had
access to them. Another group are doctors in general and scientists working at universities
and public institutes, trusted by about a third of respondents. The government, pharma-
ceutical companies and other profit-driven global and Polish companies were not trusted
by respondents. It is noteworthy that more than half of the respondents (
N= 581, 55.2%
)
completely distrust the government in the area of maintaining confidentiality and ensuring
the security of data stored in the biobank (Table 9).
Table 9. Level of trust.
Variable 1—Lack of Trust N(%) 2 N(%) 3 N(%) 4 N(%) 5—Full Trust N(%)
My doctor/General Practitioner 56 (5.3) 73 (6.9) 320 (30.4) 390 (37.1) 213 (20.2)
Doctors in general 106 (10.1) 143 (13.6) 432 (41.1) 307 (29.2) 64 (6.1)
Researchers at the university 81 (7.7) 119 (11.3) 396 (37.6) 357 (33.9) 99 (9.4)
Researchers in other
public institutions 91 (8.7) 155 (14.7) 409 (38.9) 312 (29.7) 85 (8.1)
Pharmaceutical companies 298 (28.3) 264 (25.1) 353 (33.6) 116 (11.0) 26 (2.5)
Other than pharmaceutical,
global, for-profit
private companies
464 (44.1) 257 (24.4) 251 (23.9) 70 (6.7) 10 (1.0)
Other than pharmaceuticals,
Polish for-profit
private companies
477 (45.3) 253 (24.0) 256 (24.3) 53 (5.0) 13 (1.2)
Insurance companies 461 (43.8) 255 (24.2) 254 (24.1) 67 (6.4) 15 (1.4)
Government 581 (55.2) 185 (17.6) 194 (18.4) 73 (6.9) 19 (1.8)
According to respondents, the responsibility for the storage of samples and related
data should rest with the biobank’s board of directors (N= 567, 53.9%) or an indepen-
dent committee of experts not associated with the biobank (N= 337, 32.0%). Respon-
dents have the least confidence in a committee composed of representatives of the public
(
N= 155, 14.7%
) or a mixed committee composed of experts and representatives of the
public (N= 126, 12.0%) (Table 10).
Table 10. Responsibility for storage and management of samples and data.
Responsibility for Samples and Data Stored in the Biobank Should Rest with the: Results N(%)
Biobank (Management Board) 567 (53.9)
Independent expert committee (e.g., independent researchers: scientists and clinicians
not associated with the biobank) 337 (32.0)
An independent committee representing the public (e.g., citizens, patients, the public) 155 (14.7)
Mixed Committee composed of the public and experts 126 (12.0)
Other 17 (1.6)
3.7. Correlation Analysis
The study included a Sperman correlation analysis, which examined whether factors
such as age, education, place of residence and gender are related to an awareness of
scientific research in which biological material is used, knowledge of the term biobanking,
opinion on scientific research and willingness to donate their samples to a biobank. The
analysis showed a negligible correlation between the aforementioned factors (Table 11).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 13 of 20
Table 11.
Correlation between socio-demographic factors and awareness of biobanking or willingness
to donate biological material.
Variable Awareness of
Scientific Research ρ
Knowledge of Term
Biobanking ρ
Opinion on Scientific
Research ρ
Willingness to Donate
Biological Material ρ
Age −0.002 0.035 −0.124 −0.042
Education −0.112 −0.119 −0.093 −0.068
Place of residence −0.045 0.006 −0.057 −0.051
Gender −0.023 0.027 −0.021 −0.021
The table shows the correlation coefficients calculated via Spearman’s Q method.
It was also checked whether there was a correlation between their opinion on scientific
research, awareness about scientific research in which biological material is used, and
knowledge of the term biobanking. An average correlation was shown between the opinion
regarding scientific research and willingness to donate one’s biological material (Table 12).
Table 12.
Correlation between awareness, knowledge and opinion of biobanking and willingness to
donate biological material.
Variable Willingness to Donate Biological Material ρp-Value
Opinion on scientific research 0.475 <0.05
Awareness of scientific research 0.211 <0.05
Knowledge of term biobanking 0.136 <0.05
The table shows the correlation coefficients calculated via Spearman’s Q method and the p-value.
4. Discussion
4.1. Public Awareness of Biobanks and the Scientific Research during Which Biological Material
Is Collected
A similar distribution of the population was presented in a 2010 Eurobarometer sur-
vey on biotechnology [
32
], a survey conducted in Switzerland in 2020 [
33
] and a survey
conducted in Latvia in 2019 [
35
]. According to the 2010 Eurobarometer survey on biotech-
nology, it was shown that, looking at the Central and Eastern European region, in Poland
28% of citizens had heard of biobanks, compared to 46% of Czech citizens, 34% of Slovak
citizens, 34% of Lithuanian citizens and 31% of Hungarian citizens who had encountered
the term [
32
]. The European average was 34%. In Germany, 30.8% of respondents in a 2018
survey had heard of biobanks [
36
]. In a 2019 survey in Latvia this percentage was 25.8% [
6
].
In Poland in 2023, around less than three quarters (71%) of medical students encountered
the term biobank [
37
]. In 2013 in Poland, less than half (48%) of respondents associated a
biobank with an institution related to medicine and 37% of respondents associated it with
an institution related to scientific activities [
38
]. In the same survey, 39% of respondents
had positive feelings about the word biobank, 35% mixed and 8% negative. Among 18% of
respondents, the word biobank did not evoke any feelings [
38
]. According to the results of
our survey, 20.9% of respondents in Poland in 2023 have heard of biobanking. However, in
the question on indicating the definition of biobanking, as many as 41.9% of respondents
indicated that, in their opinion, biobanking is a process in which body fluid or tissue sam-
ples, genetic data and medical data (medical history, laboratory results, etc.) are collected
and stored in order to better understand the state of health and the course of disease. It
should also be noted that in Poland, more than 66% of respondents indicate that they have
heard of scientific research in which biological material is used, and 58.3% have a positive
opinion of it. In Switzerland, 71% of the public has heard of such research and more than
60% have a positive opinion of it [
33
]. In Germany, 95.5% of respondents have a positive
opinion about scientific research [
36
]. Comparing the results obtained from the present
study with those obtained by other researchers, it can be concluded that both Polish society
and other European societies have an awareness of scientific research in which biological
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 14 of 20
material is collected, but are not fully aware that such material can be subject to biobanking
and what this process consists of. We can also conclude that since the Eurobarometer 2010
survey in Polish society, there are no changes, either favorable or unfavorable, regarding
the level of knowledge and awareness of biobanking.
4.2. The Approach to Informed Consent
Informed consent in the context of biobanking is a debated ethical and social issue [
23
–
26
].
Currently the use of specific consent is limited for many reasons—biological samples are
used in many studies by many scientists working in different locations. Therefore, new
models of consent are being sought and proposed [
39
,
40
]. Among medical school students
in Saudi Arabia, 78% were aware that donating material to a biobank requires consent
from the potential donor [
41
]. In the United States, in Colorado, 79% of respondents
believed that the researcher must obtain consent from them to collect biological material
for biobanking, 11% that there is no such requirement and 10% have no opinion [
42
]. In the
2010 Eurobarometer survey in Poland, 61% of respondents agreed with the use of specific
consent while 22% agreed with the use of broad consent. The European average is 67% for
broad consent and 18% for specific consent [
32
]. In Latvia, in 2019, 27.4% of respondents
preferred broad consent and 62.2% of respondents preferred specific consent [
35
]. In 2013
in Poland, more than half of respondents on giving informed consent said it was very
important that they would like to know what scientific projects their samples will be used
for (59%) and how data and samples in the biobank are secured from illegal access (55%).
In the same survey, a high percentage of respondents indicated that it is necessary to give
consent whenever samples are reused for scientific research (66% marked “Definitely yes”
or “Rather yes”). Around 42% said strongly that re-consent is necessary when a commercial
entity (e.g., a pharmaceutical company) asks the biobank to provide samples. About
one-third strongly supported the requirement for re-consent if the subsequent research
addresses other scientific problems (35%), or if researchers from other institutions in Poland
(36%) or abroad (36%) request that samples are shared. The idea of interpreting the original
consent broadly was strongly supported by only 10% of respondents, and moderately
by 13% of respondents [
38
]. Among Polish medical school students, there is a belief that
donors should be asked for consent to use their biological material in cases where the
samples would be used by external researchers or foreign institutions. Moreover, a lot of
students also had opinion that such consent should also be obtained when a new research
project is different from the original project. The most of them declared that consent should
be acquired before every new research project. Less than one third of respondents stated
that no additional consent should be required if the donor consents while donating [
37
]. In
2023 in Poland, it was shown that 58.8% of respondents believe that they must give their
consent to biobank their samples, 34.2% have no opinion on this and 7.0% believe that they
do not have to give their consent to biobanking. In addition, 48.0% of respondents believe
that they should give their consent every time the samples they provide are to be used for
a new research project only 14.2% of respondents consider a one-time consent sufficient. To
complete the picture, it is worth noting that in this survey 53.8% of respondents indicated
that they can withdraw consent already given and 42.1% did not know if they can make
such a decision. Comparing the results with 2010 and 2013, we see that specific consent
is much more frequently chosen in Polish society. Respondents are very distrustful of the
concept of broad consent. Surprisingly, even medical university students, who are much
more aware of biobanking and research using biological material, are reluctant to use broad
consent. This may be due to a high sense of autonomy and the need for control over one’s
data and donated biological material.
4.3. Willingness to Participate in the Study and Factors Affecting the Decision to Donate
Biological Material
Willingness to participate in scientific research and willingness to donate biological
material was reported in 83% of Finns [
43
] and 78% of Swedes [
44
]. It is also worth men-
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 15 of 20
tioning that in Finland, two more papers were published in 2019 relating to the willingness
to donate one’s biological material to a biobank. In the first of these, respondents, despite
having some doubts about donor protection and the protection of personal data, generally
have a positive opinion of donating blood to a biobank [
45
]. In the second, it was shown
that Finnish society, despite its openness to scientific research and strong declarations of
willingness to donate their biological material to biobanks, has a lower actual willingness
to donate biological material than declared [
46
]. In Italy, 76.3% of students and personnel
of the University of Piemonte Orientale that completed the questionnaire agreed to donate
their material for research [
47
]. In Germany 70.4% of the respondents agreed [
36
]. Among
Americans, this percentage was 69% [
42
]. In contrast, among the Swiss, the percentage
was 53.6% [
33
] and among the Latvians, 36.7% [
35
]. In 2013 in Poland, less than half of the
respondents (45%) were rather ready to donate their sample to the population biobank,
and around 12% were definitely ready [
38
]. In the 2022 survey, approximately half of the
respondents declared that they were open to donating their biological material (“rather
yes”—30.4%; “definitely yes”—17.2%) [
48
]. In contrast, in 2023, almost three quarters of
Polish medical university students (73.3%) declared a willingness to donate their biological
material for research purposes [
37
]. In our study in Poland in 2023, around 65.3% of respon-
dents agreed to take part in a scientific study that would biobank their biological material
and information and their health status. Comparing the results, we see that, in general,
more than half of the respondents in Poland would be willing to donate their samples to a
biobank. The percentage is higher among medical university students, perhaps due to a
greater awareness of biobanking and scientific research in general. Considering the level of
knowledge of the respondents regarding biobanking, the percentage of people willing to
donate their biological material for biobanking in Poland is exceptionally high. It can be
assumed that this is due to a high level of trust in the medical and scientific community.
Citizens of the European Union, on a roughly equal level, were ready to donate in-
formation about their genetic profile (34%), medical records (33%), blood samples (30%),
samples taken during surgery (30%) or lifestyle information (24%) to the biobank [
32
].
Latvians in 2019 were willing to donate blood samples (25.5%), samples taken during
surgery (26.7%), their genetic profile (27.5%), medical records (35.6%) or lifestyle informa-
tion (25.8%) [
35
]. The Swiss would be most willing to hand over their health forms (85.6%),
a blood sample (84.6%) and biological samples that they can collect themselves (81.6%).
They would be least willing to share information from their social media (14.5%) [
33
]. Saudi
Arabian students would be most likely to donate a blood sample (82%), saliva (77%) or
urine (70%) to a biobank [
41
]. In Poland in 2022, most respondents were willing to donate
urine (73.9%), blood (69.7%), hair (69.6%) and tears (69.0%). Respondents were least willing
to provide the following biological material: post-mortem donation of brain fragments
(20%), sperm (males; 36.4%), egg cells (females; 39.6%) and bone marrow (40.5%) [
49
]. The
results obtained in our study in 2023 do not differ from those obtained by other researchers.
In general, in Poland, respondents that are ready to donate their biological material to
a biobank are most willing to donate their blood sample (68,4%) or samples they can
collect themselves (75%). They are not as willing to share their medical history or lifestyle
information. It is also worth noting that respondents generally show a higher willingness
to hand over their information than the European average.
Among students in Saudi Arabia, the most important motivating factors for donating
their biological material were the opportunity to support the advancement of medical
science (44%) and the opportunity to obtain health information (25%) [
41
]. Among residents
of the state of Colorado, the opportunity to contribute to scientific advancement (85%) and
support in understanding genetics and disease risk, survival, or treatment methods (72%)
were identified as the most important factors influencing decisions to donate a sample
to a biobank [
42
]. Among Swedes, the main motivating factors for donating biological
material were the opportunity to support future patients (88.7%) and a personal benefit to
the donor or his family (61.1%) [
44
]. In the cited literature, examples related to altruistic
motives predominate, so it is puzzling to see the results presented in this study, where the
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 16 of 20
welfare of future generations is considered by only 36.2% of respondents. In contrast, the
opportunity to expand scientific knowledge motivates only 45.4% of respondents. The main
motivation of respondents is the opportunity to gain personal benefits and learn something
about their own health (62.6%). Comparing these groups is fraught with high risk, as
altruistic attitudes may be influenced by a number of factors unrelated to the characteristics
of the survey conducted, and factors such as history, education or religion. Although the
motivating factors for donating biological material may vary, whether in Poland, Sweden,
the United States or Saudi Arabia, the most important factors negatively influencing the
willingness to donate biological material to a biobank include concerns about unauthorized
use of samples or issues related to confidentiality and sample security [
41
,
42
,
44
]. It is worth
noting that in Poland in 2013, the biggest concerns about donating material to a biobank
were the use of the material to conduct unethical scientific research and the risk of sharing
data with an employer [
38
]. Despite such high concerns about data security, as many as
15.7% of respondents felt that data should be stored with contact information allowing for
immediate identification and 56.2% of respondents indicated that they would prefer that
data be stored in a coded manner allowing for possible identification rather than in a fully
anonymized manner. This has not changed since 2013; the respondents were more likely
to favor the reversible coding of samples than anonymization when asked how to protect
samples and donor data [38].
In Poland, in the 2022 study no statistically significant relationships were found
between the willingness to donate samples to a biobank and sociodemographic variables,
i.e., gender (t= 0.734, p= 0.486), age (r = 0.052, p= 0.087), place of residence (
rho = 0.042
,
p= 0.166
) or education (rho = 0.001, p= 0.994) [
48
]. In another study from 2022 the potential
donor type was identified. The type did not differ statistically in gender, age, education,
religiousness or trust in other people [
49
]. In our study, we also found no statistically
significant correlation between the willingness to donate material to the biobank and
gender, age, place of residence or education. The most puzzling thing is the lack of the
influence of education on the willingness to donate one’s material to biobanking, in all
likelihood this is provoked by the total lack of teaching about biobanking whether in
elementary school, high school or during college.
4.4. Public Trust for Research Using Biological Material and Biobanking
In general, worldwide, scientific institutions are trusted more than governments or
commercial or insurance companies. Respondents generally show great concern about
the transfer of data from the public sector to the private sector due to low trust in the
private sector. They fear that their information could be used to their detriment or in
a manner inconsistent with their worldview [
39
,
50
–
52
]. In 2010, both in the European
Union and in Poland, physicians were given the most trust in terms of access to and
oversight of data and samples stored in a biobank, 39% and 44%, respectively [
32
]. In
Latvia, in a 2019 survey the first indication was that physicians were also given the most
trust (28.8%) followed by scientists (15.6%) [
35
]. In Poland, in 2022, a stepwise regression
analysis was conducted to define those variables which influenced the most the willingness
to donate biological material to a biobank. Willingness to donate biological material to
a biobank was best described by trust in scientists (
β
= 0.082, t= 2.134, p= 0.033) and
doctors (
β= 0.080
,t= 2.089, p= 0.037) as well as personal development (
β
= 0.086, t= 2.854,
p= 0.004
) and tradition (
β
= 0.060, t= 1.982, p= 0.048) [
48
]. In the United States, 92% of
respondents would be willing to give their data to scientists, 80% to the government and
75% to commercial companies [
53
]. In Australia, in 2019, 51.8% of the respondents were
willing to share their data with the private sector to improve health services and 57.98% for
research and development purposes [
54
]. In Canada, in 2019, respondents had mixed and
more negative reactions when there was private sector involvement regarding research
based on linked administrative health data [
55
]. In 2023, a review of the literature found
that patients generally expect high transparency and have high concerns about sharing their
data with private sector entities [
56
]. According to our results, Polish society trusts doctors
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 17 of 20
and scientists the most. It is worth mentioning that the most trusted doctors are those
whom respondents have direct contact with. The results obtained in our study indicate
low levels of trust both in public institutions and commercial companies, which is in some
contradiction to the results obtained in other surveys where public institutions tend to have
a higher level of trust. This difference can probably be determined by cultural or historical
factors. Puzzlingly, compared to other responses from our study, respondents believe that a
biobank should be under the supervision of a board of managers rather than a committee of
experts (doctors and scientists). This represents some contradiction in terms of information
as to whom respondents trust most. However, the source of this contradiction may be an
insufficient awareness of how biobanks operate.
5. Limitations
Our study has some limitations. The survey was conducted using the CAWI method.
Online surveys, due to their characteristics, have their limitations [
57
–
59
]. It is not pos-
sible to reach Internet-excluded people and those who are poorly equipped with new
technologies. Another issue is respondent fatigue in the process of answering. During
the development of the questionnaire we tried to minimize the number of questions and
prepare them in a way that is as understandable and accessible to respondents as possible,
however, there is an ongoing risk of respondent fatigue leading to respondents filling out
the questionnaire as quickly as possible and answering questions not in accordance with
their views. Admittedly, the survey questionnaire was developed based on previously
published research results and survey questionnaires, was subjected to expert verification
and was tested on a narrow group of people with no ties to scientific research and the
biomedical sector, however, these measures may have been insufficient. Unfortunately,
due to funding constraints, it was not possible to conduct a pilot study on a smaller study
population and consequently create the most refined questionnaire possible. Another issue
is the size of the oldest group of respondents. Its size (35.1% of respondents older than
55 years) may possibly influence the results. However, the survey was conducted using
a nationwide research panel from Ariadna, which declares it provides anonymized data
consistent with a representative distribution of Polish citizens. According to the Central
Statistical Office of Poland (CSO), in 2021, citizens aged 18–44 accounted for about 44.8% of
all adult citizens. Citizens over the age of 44 accounted for 55.2% of all adult citizens [
60
].
In our survey, respondents aged 18–44 accounted for 45.2% of all respondents. Older
citizens accounted for 54.8% of all respondents. Thus, we believe that the results describe
awareness, opinions and attitudes of the Polish population, with a small bias. Finally, we
believe that our work may stimulate further research on the topic. Given the above, it
seems that conducting an analogous survey, based on an updated questionnaire, using
other research methods such as CATI, PAPI or personal interviews could yield even more
detailed results. However, it should be borne in mind that such a survey will be much
more time-consuming and will generate higher costs.
6. Conclusions
In Poland, despite a relatively low level of knowledge among the public about biobank-
ing, respondents showed a surprisingly high willingness to donate their biological material
to a biobank. It can be assumed that the Polish public has a high level of trust in med-
ical and scientific personnel working at universities and public research institutions for
this reason; despite the low level of awareness, they are ready to participate in scientific
research. It is also worth noting that the results indicate that the main motivation for
participating in scientific research is personal or family benefits. The biggest concerns that
respondents have are related to issues of access to the data they provide and the safeguards
used. Researchers wishing to recruit potential donors during their meeting should focus
on indicating what the potential personal benefits are that such a donor may gain from
donating their biological material, and should explain in detail how they intend to ensure
the safety of the samples and data collected. There is also an apparent need for educational
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 18 of 20
activities aimed at informing the public about scientific research with a special focus on
biobanking. It is also crucial to raise awareness about the role that informed consent plays
in the entire process and what rights a potential donor has. Given the low trust in the
government and the pharmaceutical industry, it makes sense that the awareness-raising
process should be led by the medical or scientific community. It would seem appropriate
to run an information campaign, featuring representatives of the scientific or medical
community who are well known and trusted by society, to raise the public awareness of
biobanking and inform the public about the advantages and benefits of the process.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, Ł.P., M.C., M.G. and N.D.B.; methodology, Ł.P., M.C., M.G.
and N.D.B.; formal analysis, Ł.P. and N.D.B.; investigation, Ł.P.; writing—original draft preparation,
Ł.P.; writing—review and editing; M.C. and M.G.; visualization, Ł.P.; supervision, M.C. and M.G.;
project administration, Ł.P.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
On 16 January 2023, in decision No. AKBE/3/2023, the
study and the questionnaire received a positive opinion from the Ethics Committee at the Medical
University of Warsaw.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Park, A. 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. Biobanks. Time, 12 March 2009. Available online: https://content.time.com/
time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884766,00.html (accessed on 30 September 2023).
2. Kaiser, J. Biobanks. Population databases boom, from Iceland to the U.S. Science 2002,298, 1158–1161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Yuille, M.; van Ommen, G.J.; Bréchot, C.; Cambon-Thomsen, A.; Dagher, G.; Landegren, U.; Litton, J.E.; Pasterk, M.; Peltonen, L.;
Taussig, M.; et al. Biobanking for Europe. Brief. Bioinform. 2008,1, 14–24. [CrossRef]
4.
Kinkorová, J. Biobanks in the era of personalized medicine: Objectives, challenges, and innovation: Overview. EPMA J.
2016
,7, 4.
[CrossRef]
5.
Information about the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories. Available online: https://www.isber.
org/page/about (accessed on 30 September 2023).
6.
Campbell, L.D.; Astrin, J.J.; DeSouza, Y.; Giri, J.; Patel, A.A.; Rawley-Payne, M.; Rush, A.; Sieffert, N. The 2018 Revision of the
ISBER Best Practices: Summary of Changes and the Editorial Team’s Development Process. Biopreserv. Biobank.
2018
,16, 3–6.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Snapes, E.; Simeon-Dubach, D. ISBER Best Practices for Repositories, Moving Toward the Fifth Edition. Biopreserv. Biobank.
2022
,
20, 107–108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories Annual Report 2023. Available online: https://cdn.ymaws.
com/www.isber.org/resource/resmgr/isber_2023/ISBER-AnnuaReport2023_Abridg.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2023).
9.
Astrin, J.J.; Baker, S.; Barker, K.; Barr, T.J.; Bartels, P.; Benson, E.; Berents, P.; Butler, C.; Cada, M.; Campbell, L.D.; et al. Best
Practices: Recommendations for Repositories, 4th ed.; Campbell, L.D., Astrin, J.J., Brody, R., De Souza, Y., Giri, J.G., Patel, A.A.,
Rawley-Payne, M., Rush, A., Sieffer, N., Eds.; ISBER: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018; pp. 3–87.
10.
BBMRI-ERIC. Statutes of the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructures European Research Infrastructure
Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC), Rev.3. 2023, pp. 1–20. Available online: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/20230125
_BBMRI-ERIC_Statutes_Rev3_EN.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2023).
11.
Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 on the Community Legal Framework for a European Research Infrastructure
Consortium (ERIC) Amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 1261/2013 of 2 December 2013. Available online: https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009R0723-20131226 (accessed on 30 September 2023).
12.
Information about Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure—European Research Infrastructure Consortium. Available
online: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/about/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
13.
Events Organized by Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure—European Research Infrastructure Consortium. Available
online: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/events/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
14.
Knowledge Base of Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure—European Research Infrastructure Consortium. Available
online: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/elsi-knowledge-base/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 19 of 20
15.
Wito´n, M.; Strapagiel, D.; Gle ´nska-Olender, J.; Chró´scicka, A.; Ferdyn, K.; Skokowski, J.; Kalinowski, L.; Pawlikowski, J.;
Marciniak, B.; Pasterk, M.; et al. Organization of BBMRI.pl: The Polish Biobanking Network. Biopreserv. Biobank.
2017
,15, 264–269.
[CrossRef]
16.
Polish National Node of Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure—European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-
ERIC). Available online: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/national-nodes/poland/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
17.
Kozera, Ł.; Strapagiel, D.; Gle ´nska-Olender, J.; Chró´scicka, A.; Ferdyn, K.; Skokowski, J.; Kalinowski, L.; Pawlikowski, J.;
Marciniak, B.; Pasterk, M.; et al. Biobankowanie ludzkiego materiału biologicznego dla celów naukowych w Polsce i w Europie.
Stud. Iurid. 2018,73, 13–28.
18.
Information about Polish Biobanking Network. Available online: https://polskasiecbiobankow.pl/PL/home/#aboutUs (accessed
on 30 September 2023).
19.
Statistical Information Relating to Biobanks in Polish Biobanking Network. Available online: https://polskasiecbiobankow.pl/
PL/biobanks (accessed on 30 September 2023).
20.
Chró´scicka, A.; Paluch, A.; Kozera, Ł.; Lewandowska-Szumieł, M. The landscape of biobanks in Poland-characteristics of Polish
biobanking units at the beginning of BBMRI.pl organization. J. Transl. Med. 2021,19, 267. [CrossRef]
21.
Status of Polish Biobanking Network. Available online: https://polskasiecbiobankow.pl/PL/search/advanced (accessed on 30
September 2023).
22.
Krekora-Zaj ˛ac, D. Legal aspects of biobanking HBS for scientific purposes in Poland. Stud. Prawnicze/Leg. Stud.
2019
,4, 165–184.
[CrossRef]
23.
Hoeyer, K. Size matters: The ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Nor. Epidemiol.
2012,21, 211–220. [CrossRef]
24.
Bledsoe, M.J. Ethical Legal and Social Issues of Biobanking: Past, Present, and Future. Biopreserv. Biobank.
2017
,15, 142–147.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Caulfield, T.; Murdoch, B. Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLoS Biol.
2017
,15, e2002654. [CrossRef]
26.
Tzortzatou-Nanopoulou, O.; Akyüz, K.; Goisauf, M.; Kozera, Ł.; Mežinska, S.; Th Mayrhofer, M.; Slokenberga, S.; Reichel, J.;
Croxton, T.; Ziaka, A.; et al. Ethical, legal, and social implications in research biobanking: A checklist for navigating complexity.
Dev. World Bioeth. 2023.ahead of print. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2013.
Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-
involving-human-subjects/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
28.
Gille, F.; Brall, C. Can we know if donor trust expires? About trust relationships and time in the context of open consent for future
data use. J. Med. Ethics 2022,48, 184–188. [CrossRef]
29.
Staunton, C.; de Vries, J. The governance of genomic biobank research in Africa: Reframing the regulatory tilt. J. Law Biosci.
2020
,
7, lsz018. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Somiari, S.B.; Somiari, R.I. The Future of Biobanking: A Conceptual Look at How Biobanks Can Respond to the Growing Human
Biospecimen Needs of Researchers. In Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Karimi-Busheri, F., Cohen, I.R., Lambris, J.D.,
Paoletti, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 11–27. ISBN 978-3-319-20579-3. [CrossRef]
31.
Caulfield, T.; Burningham, S.; Joly, Y.; Master, Z.; Shabani, M.; Borry, P.; Becker, A.; Burgess, M.; Calder, K.; Critchley, C.; et al. A
review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J. Law Biosci. 2014,1, 94–110. [CrossRef]
32.
TNS Opinion & Social. Special Eurobarometer 341/Wave 73.1. Biotechnology; Directorate-General for Communication: Brussels,
Belgium, 2010; pp. 137–142.
33.
Brall, C.; Berlin, C.; Zwahlen, M.; Ormond, K.E.; Egger, M.; Vayena, E. Public willingness to participate in personalized health
research and biobanking: A large-scale Swiss survey. PLoS ONE 2021,16, e0249141. [CrossRef]
34.
Quality Certificate of Ariadna Company. Available online: https://www.pkjpa.pl/certyfikat-jakosci/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
35.
Mezinska, S.; Kaleja, J.; Mileiko, I.; Santare, D.; Rovite, V.; Tzivian, L. Public awareness of and attitudes towards research biobanks
in Latvia. BMC Med. Ethics 2020,21, 65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Bossert, S.; Kahrass, H.; Strech, D. The Public’s Awareness of and Attitude Toward Research Biobanks—A Regional German
Survey. Front. Genet. 2018,9, 190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Domaradzki, J.; Czekajewska, J.; Walkowiak, D. To donate or not to donate? Future healthcare professionals’ opinions on
biobanking of human biological material for research purposes. BMC Med. Ethics 2023,24, 53. [CrossRef]
38.
Pawlikowski, J. Biobankowanie Ludzkiego Materiału Biologicznego dla Celów Bada´n Naukowych—Aspekty Organizacyjne, Etyczne,
Prawne i Społeczne; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Lublinie: Lublin, Poland, 2013; pp. 95–193.
39.
Domaradzki, J.; Pawlikowski, J. Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes:
A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 2209. [CrossRef]
40.
Master, Z.; Campo-Engelstein, L.; Caulfield, T. Scientists’ perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research. Eur. J.
Hum. Genet. 2015,23, 569–574. [CrossRef]
41.
Merdad, L.; Aldakhil, L.; Gadi, R.; Assidi, M.; Saddick, S.Y.; Abuzenadah, A.; Vaught, J.; Buhmeida, A.; Al-Qahtani, M.H.
Assessment of knowledge about biobanking among healthcare students and their willingness to donate biospecimens. BMC Med.
Ethics 2017,18, 32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Healthcare 2023,11, 2714 20 of 20
42.
Rahm, A.K.; Wrenn, M.; Carroll, N.M.; Feigelson, H.S. Biobanking for research: A survey of patient population attitudes and
understanding. J. Community Genet. 2013,4, 445–450. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43.
Tupasela, A.; Sihvo, S.; Snell, K.; Jallinoja, P.; Aro, A.R.; Hemminki, E. Attitudes towards biomedical use of tissue sample
collections, consent, and biobanks among Finns. Scand. J. Public Health 2010,38, 46–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Kettis-Lindblad, A.; Ring, L.; Viberth, E.; Hansson, M.G. Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do
potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur. J. Public Health 2006,16, 433–440. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45.
Raivola, V.; Snell, K.; Helén, I.; Partanen, J. Attitudes of blood donors to their sample and data donation for biobanking. Eur. J.
Hum. Genet. 2019,27, 1659–1667. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Snell, K.; Tarkkala, H. Questioning the rhetoric of a ‘willing population’ in Finnish biobanking. Life Sci. Soc. Policy
2019
,15, 4.
[CrossRef]
47.
Aleni, C.; Rinaldi, C.; Bettio, V.; Mazzucco, E.; Antona, A.; Meini, C.; Loria, E.; Bonvicini, P.; Cracas, S.V.; Caristia, S.; et al. Public
Attitude towards Biobanking: An Italian University Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 13041. [CrossRef]
48.
Pawlikowski, J.; Wiechetek, M.; Majchrowska, A. Associations between the Willingness to Donate Samples to Biobanks and
Selected Psychological Variables. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 2552. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Majchrowska, A.; Wiechetek, M.; Domaradzki, J.; Pawlikowski, J. Social differentiation of the perception and human tissues
donation for research purposes. Front. Genet. 2022,13, 989252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Papoutsi, C.; Reed, J.E.; Marston, C.; Lewis, R.; Majeed, A.; Bell, D. Patient and public views about the security and privacy of
Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: Results from a mixed methods study. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak.
2015
,15, 86.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Kerasidou, A.; Kerasidou, C.X. Data-driven research and healthcare: Public trust, data governance and the NHS. BMC Med. Ethics
2023,24, 51, Erratum in BMC Med. Ethics 2023,24, 77. [CrossRef]
52.
Dixon-Woods, M.; Kocman, D.; Brewster, L.; Willars, J.; Laurie, G.; Tarrant, C. A qualitative study of participants’ views on
re-consent in a longitudinal biobank. BMC Med. Ethics 2017,18, 22. [CrossRef]
53.
Kaufman, D.J.; Murphy-Bollinger, J.; Scott, J.; Hudson, K.L. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2009,85, 643–654. [CrossRef]
54.
Braunack-Mayer, A.; Fabrianesi, B.; Street, J.; O’Shaughnessy, P.; Carter, S.M.; Engelen, L.; Carolan, L.; Bosward, R.; Roder, D.;
Sproston, K. Sharing Government Health Data with the Private Sector: Community Attitudes Survey. J. Med. Internet Res.
2021
,
23, e24200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
Paprica, P.A.; de Melo, M.N.; Schull, M.J. Social licence and the general public’s attitudes toward research based on linked
administrative health data: A qualitative study. CMAJ Open 2019,7, E40–E46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56.
Cumyn, A.; Ménard, J.F.; Barton, A.; Dault, R.; Lévesque, F.; Ethier, J.F. Patients’ and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding
Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: Scoping Review. J. Med. Internet Res.
2023
,25, e45002. [CrossRef]
57. Andrade, C. The Limitations of Online Surveys. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2020,42, 575–576. [CrossRef]
58.
Menon, V.; Muraleedharan, A. Internet-based surveys: Relevance, methodological considerations and troubleshooting strategies.
Gen. Psychiatr. 2020,33, e100264. [CrossRef]
59.
Wright, K.B. Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online
Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun.
2005
,10, JCMC1034.
[CrossRef]
60.
State and Structure of Population in Poland by Age in 1989–2021. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/download/gfx/
portalinformacyjny/pl/defaultaktualnosci/5468/16/1/1/tablica_1p.xls (accessed on 30 September 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
