Back to Search Start Over

Biobanking, digital health and privacy: the choices of 1410 volunteers and neurological patients regarding limitations on use of data and biological samples, return of results and sharing.

Authors :
Giannella E
Bauça JM
Di Santo SG
Brunelli S
Costa E
Di Fonzo S
Fusco FR
Perre A
Pisani V
Presicce G
Spanedda F
Scivoletto G
Formisano R
Grasso MG
Paolucci S
De Angelis D
Sancesario G
Source :
BMC medical ethics [BMC Med Ethics] 2024 Sep 27; Vol. 25 (1), pp. 100. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 27.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Background: The growing diffusion of artificial intelligence, data science and digital health has highlighted the role of collection of data and biological samples, thus raising legal and ethical concerns regarding its use and dissemination. Further, the expansion of biobanking, from the basic collection of frozen specimens to the virtual biobanks of specimens and associated data that exist today, has given a revolutionary potential on healthcare systems, particularly in the field of neurological diseases, due to the inaccessibility of central nervous system and the need of non-invasive investigation approaches. Informed Consent (IC) is considered mandatory in all research studies and specimen collections, and must specifically take into account the ethical respect to the individuals to whom the used biological material and data belong.<br />Methods: We evaluated the attitudes of patients with neurological diseases (NP) and healthy volunteers (HV) towards the donation of biological samples to a biobank for future research studies on neurological diseases, and limitations on the use of data, related to the requirements set by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The study involved a total of 1454 subjects, including 502 HVs and 952 NPs, recruited at Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Rome, from 2020 to 2024.<br />Results: We found that (i) almost all subjects agreed with the participation in biobanking (ii) and authorization to genetic studies (HV = 99.1%; NP = 98.3%); Regarding the return of results, (iii) we found a statistically significant difference between NP and HV, the latter preferring not to be informed of potential results (HV = 43%; NP = 11.3%; p < 0.0001); (iv) a small number limited the sharing inside European Union (EU) (HV = 4.6%; NP = 6.6%), whereas patients were more likely to refuse transfer outside EU (HV = 7.4%; NP = 10.7% p = 0.05); (v) nearly all patients agreed with the use of additional health data from EMR for research purposes (98.9%).<br />Conclusions: Consent for the donation of material for research purposes is crucial for biobanking and biomedical research studies that use biological material of human origin. Here, we have shown that choices regarding participation in a neurological biobank can be different between HVs and NPs, even if the benefit for research and scientific progress is recognized. NP have a strong interest in being informed of possible results but limit sharing of samples, highlighting a perception of greater individual or relative benefit, while HV prefer a wide dissemination and sharing of data but not to have the return of the results, favoring a possible benefit for society and knowledge. The results underline the need to carefully manage biological material and data collected in biobanks, in compliance with the GDPR and the specific requests of donors.<br /> (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1472-6939
Volume :
25
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
BMC medical ethics
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
39334200
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01102-3