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.