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 :
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
Source :
BMC Medical Ethics, Vol 25, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2024)
Publication Year :
2024
Publisher :
BMC, 2024.

Abstract

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

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14726939
Volume :
25
Issue :
1
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
BMC Medical Ethics
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.286ec87c34c04da8b8cc69c21861f6f0
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01102-3