A reply to “Letter to the editor in response to the article ‘To assess the attitudes of Irish patients attending a pigmented lesion clinic and healthcare staff employed in an academic hospital to biobanking, a quantitative study’”

Dear Editor, We read with thanks the reply from Howard-James et al to the attitudes of Irish patients to biobanking.1 It is interesting that the mentions of biobanking on social media also reflect a largely positive sentiment. In 2024, 70% of TikTok's users were between 18 and 35 years old (543 million people).2 This younger population may not have interacted with healthcare services, specifically biobanking services, previously so it is encouraging that up to a mean of 20,100 individuals viewed this content via Tiktok as shown by your research.1 Our study did include 77 Bounce marketing participants under the age of 35 and we found some differences in the responses between the patient and the Bounce marketing groups.3 When we looked at the total patient population, 77% reported their initial impression of biobanks was positive. Correspondingly healthcare workers reported a positive response in 84% but only 46% of the Bounce marketing respondents described a positive outlook on biobanks (X2 (6, N = 426) = 56, p ≤ 0.001). This may imply that those who have had previous interactions with the healthcare system have a more positive outlook on biobanking or that younger cohorts of patients are less accepting of biobanks.3 Informing the general public about the positive and clinically important aspects to biobanks is crucial and social media may be an effective and efficient way to do this given the vast amounts of daily users, particularly younger cohorts. It would be interesting to explore if there were differences between which countries displayed positive sentiments on social media towards biobanks. Questionnaire-based research in Finland showed that 77% of individuals felt positive about biobanks and only 11% were against it.4 In Britain 75% of individuals hoped to be asked for a donation of a biospecimen and 87% thought that biobanks were important5 and in studies done in America, up to 98% positive attitudes to biobanks and their importance.6 Targeted educational information could be utilised via social media in countries where there is lack of awareness of the importance of biobanks. In the literature searches completed as part of our research we found no studies specifically related to biobanking and melanoma or any skin cancer. We noted in your letter that no studies with a melanoma-specific focus and biobanks were identified.1 Some studies we reviewed did explore that willingness to donate can be related to the type of biospecimen.7 Research participants in one study were least likely to donate tissues from the eye (54%), brain (58%), lung (58%), and bone (50%). The most popular tissue donations included those of the head and neck (74%) and ovarian/testicular tissue (71%).7 In our study, a total of 83% of all respondents were willing to donate a biospecimen following a medical procedure but 78% were willing to donate an additional blood sample and that number fell to 57% when asked if they would donate an additional tissue sample purely for the purposes of research.3 Results from our questionnaire, other Irish research8 and international research7 describe how many patients would likely be willing to donate a skin specimen in the context of melanoma diagnosis. It would be difficult to assess this via social media and therefore, questionnaire-based research may be more informative. The lack of high-quality biospecimens is widely acknowledged as a substantial impediment to medical research and specifically cancer research.8 Biobank research is essential for advancements in melanoma treatment. Further study is needed regarding the attitudes of patients to biobank research and this should be explored via traditional and social media-based methods. A research grant was received from Amgen pharmaceuticals for the initial research entitled: To assess the attitudes of Irish patients attending a pigmented lesion clinic and healthcare staff employed in an academic hospital to biobanking, a quantitative study. Stephanie Bowe conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, contributed data or analysis tools, performed the analysis, wrote the paper. Claire Quigley collected data at pigmented lesion clinics via paper forms. Liana Victory collected data at pigmented lesion clinics via paper forms. Eoin Storan supervised the project and edited the final paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the MMUH and Mater Private Hospital Dublin Institutional Review Board at a meeting in October 2022, with the project reference number: 1/378/2322. The data are not publicly available due to the privacy of research participants.