BMC Medical Ethics (Sep 2024)

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

  • Emilia Giannella,
  • Josep Miquel Bauça,
  • Simona Gabriella Di Santo,
  • Stefano Brunelli,
  • Elisabetta Costa,
  • Sergio Di Fonzo,
  • Francesca Romana Fusco,
  • Antonio Perre,
  • Valerio Pisani,
  • Giorgia Presicce,
  • Francesca Spanedda,
  • Giorgio Scivoletto,
  • Rita Formisano,
  • Maria Grazia Grasso,
  • Stefano Paolucci,
  • Domenico De Angelis,
  • Giulia Sancesario

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01102-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 25, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

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. 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. 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%). 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.

Keywords