Stakeholder engagement to ensure the sustainability of biobanks: a survey of potential users of biobank services.

Biobanks are important infrastructures facilitating biomedical research. After a decade of rolling out such infrastructures, a shift in attention to the sustainability of biobanks could be observed in recent years. In this regard, an increase in the as yet relatively low utilisation rates of biobanks has been formulated as a goal. Higher utilisation rates can only be achieved if the perspectives of potential users of biobanks-particularly researchers not yet collaborating with biobanks-are adequately considered. To better understand their perspectives, a survey was conducted at ten different research institutions in Germany hosting a centralised biobank. The survey targeted potential users of biobank services, i.e. researchers working with biosamples. It addressed the general demand for biosamples, strategies for biosample acquisition/storage and reasons for/against collaborating with biobanks. In total, 354 researchers filled out the survey. Most interestingly, only a minority of researchers (12%) acquired their biosamples via biobanks. Of the respondents not collaborating with biobanks on sample acquisition, around half were not aware of the (services of the) respective local biobank. Those who actively decided against acquiring biosamples via a biobank provided different reasons. Most commonly, respondents stated that the biosamples required were not available, the costs were too high and information about the available biosamples was not readily accessible. Biobanks can draw many lessons from the results of the survey. Particularly, external communication and outreach should be improved. Additionally, biobanks might have to reassess whether their particular collection strategies are adequately aligned with local researchers' needs.

Harmonization of Biobank Education for Biobank Technicians: Identification of Learning Objectives.

The quality of biospecimens stored in a biobank depends tremendously on the technical personnel responsible for processing, storage, and release of biospecimens. Adequate training of these biobank employees would allow harmonization of correct sample handling and thus ensure a high and comparable quality of samples across biobank locations. However, in Germany there are no specific training opportunities for technical biobank staff. To understand the educational needs of the technical personnel a web-based survey was sent to all national biobanks via established e-mail registers. In total, 79 biobank employees completed the survey, including 43 technicians. The majority of the participating technical personnel stated that they had worked in a biobank for less than three years and had never participated in an advanced training. Three-quarters of the technicians indicated that they were not able to understand English content instantly. Based on these results and the results of a workshop with 16 biobank technicians, 41 learning objectives were formulated. These learning objectives can be used as a basis for advanced training programs for technical personnel in biobanks. Setting up courses based on the identified learning objectives for this group of biobank staff could contribute to harmonization and sustainability of biospecimen quality.

Evaluating the German Biobank Node as Coordinating Institution of the German Biobank Alliance: Engaging with Stakeholders via Survey Research.

Background: The German Biobank Node (GBN) is the central hub for German biobank activities and coordinates the German Biobank Alliance (GBA) to which 11 biobank sites in Germany belong. GBN, in cooperation with designated members of GBA, has developed various services and products for the German biobank community. To ensure that services and products are well aligned with the needs and interests of relevant stakeholders, GBN actively engages with its diverse stakeholder groups through different methods. Important stakeholder groups are the members of GBA who are generally the first users of developed products and services. Methods and Materials: Members of GBA were surveyed anonymously through a web-based application. The survey was sent to all members registered with an internal communication platform. Participants were primarily asked about their experiences with GBN, developed products and services, their wishes for the future of GBN/GBA, and their attitudes toward intensified cooperation on the European level. Answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results: Overall 63 of 110 registered GBA members (response rate of 57%) finished the survey. Participants were overall satisfied with the work of GBN and developed products and services. They also pointed out room for improvement. Participants, for example, proposed to shorten the survey developed for biobanks to engage with their users. They also shared what additional support wishes they had, for example, uniform cost models or use and access policies for the GBA community. Discussion: The survey was helpful to get a good overview of the experiences and attitudes of GBA members before making services and products available to other actors in the German biobank community. GBN will use the feedback to improve its work and to guide future strategy development. Survey research has shown an adequate method to engage with this particular stakeholder group, but further research on choosing methods for stakeholder engagement might be helpful.