Results
Basic information of
sample
A total of 182 valid questionnaires were collected. From the perspective
of departments, most of the participants are from internal medicine, the
proportion of internal medicine is 37.36%. From the perspective of
Professional titles, the proportion of junior, intermediate and senior
professional titles is almost the same. From the perspective of
education, about 80% of participants are doctors and masters. From the
perspective of administrator, 23.08% of participants are administrator.
From the perspective of age, more than half of the participants are
under 40 years old. More details are shown in Table 1.
Knowledge, utilization and demand of
hospital’s
biobank
In terms of knowledge of the hospital’s biobank, 86.81% of people know
that there is a hospital-level biobank in the hospital, but only 64.29%
of people know the geographic location of the hospital’s biobank, and
only 40.66% of people know the WeChat public number of the hospital’s
biobank. 52.20% of people know about the special project of clinical
sample resources in the hospital, but only 24.73% of people know the
process of sample warehousing. In terms of utilization of the hospital’s
biobank, 59.89% of respondents said that there has people responsible
for the collection and processing of samples in their biological sample
project. 38.46% of people thought that samples currently collected by
themselves had quality assurance. 42.31% of people would conduct
regular quality monitoring on their own samples. In terms of demand for
the hospital’s biobank, 91.76% of the people are willing to pay to
store their samples in the hospital’s biobank. 33.52% of people think
it is acceptable to cost more than 5000 yuan per year for sample
storage. More details are shown in Table 2.
comparison between different
disciplines
A total of 31 clinical disciplines participated in the survey. And there
are 7 key disciplines in these 31 clinical disciplines, including four
provincial key disciplines, and three university-level key disciplines.
The survey participation rate of different clinical disciplines is shown
in Table 3. As can be seen from Table 3, the participation rate of key
disciplines is higher than that of non-key disciplines, but the
difference is not statistically significant.
In terms of knowledge of the hospital’s biobank, we calculated three
scores as is shown in Table 4. We found that these three quantitative
variables did not conform to normal distribution, so rank sum test was
used to compare the differences between the two disciplines. The results
show that key disciplines have higher score in knowledge of biobank
basic information than non-key disciplines, and the difference is
statistically significant. At the same time, key disciplines also have
higher score in knowledge of the special project of clinical sample
resources than non-key disciplines, although the difference is not
statistically significant.
In terms of utilization of the hospital’s biobank, we collected three
related variables, and the results are shown in Table 5. As can be seen
from Table 5, the proportion of people responsible for sample collection
and processing in key disciplines is higher than that in non-key
disciplines, and the difference is statistically significant. But there
is almost no difference between key disciplines and non-key disciplines
in terms of sample quality assurance and sample quality monitoring.
Up to September 2019, the hospital’s biobank has received biological
samples of blood, tissue, sputum, cerebrospinal fluid and urine.
According to statistics, the total number of samples is 63346, and 60077
of them are from key disciplines, Only 3269 of them are from non-key
disciplines. The proportion of sample storage and sample delivery of key
disciplines is 94.84% and 99.90% respectively, which are far higher
than non-key disciplines. At the same time, key disciplines have higher
sample delivery rate than non-key disciplines (Table 6).
In terms of demand for the hospital’s biobank, although the difference
is not statistically significant, the proportion of people who are
willing to pay to store samples in key disciplines is higher than that
in non-key disciplines. And the proportion of people who are willing to
pay more than 5000 yuan per year for sample storage in key disciplines
is also higher than that in non-key disciplines (Table 7).
In the aspect of discipline development, the participation situation of
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the number of
published English papers in different clinical disciplines in the past
five years (2014-2018) are shown in Table 8. As can be seen from Table
8, although the number of NSFC applications, approvals and the number of
published English papers in key disciplines is lower than that in
non-key disciplines, the number of NSFC applications per capita, the
approval rate of NSFC and the number of published English papers per
capita in key disciplines are all higher than those in non-key
disciplines.