Highlights of the 'BRIF subgroup parameters' meeting, Nov 16th 2011.

Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player
Brif subgroup parameters
Meeting Marseille November 16, 2011 Participants: Anne Cambon-Thomsen Mirella Filocamo Laurence Mabile Lisa Miranda Barbara Parodi Irene Lomba and Jeanne Hélène Di Donato also contacted at the conference.
Table 1 The aim is to: - score parameters relevant to bioresources but not handled by BRIF (column B) - score parameters relevant to bioresources and to Brif (column C) The idea is to award a score of 1-5 to each parameter, where 1 is low (may help to depict the bioresource, but of little relevance for measuring the scientific impact) and 5 is high (highly relevant, key for measuring the scientific impact of the bioresource). I have tried to clean up the table, where you should still find all the previously agreed parameters; I ask you, when commenting, to keep in mind the need to build a manageable tool for measuring impact, and to avoid, if possible, adding new items to the table. The total score for each item should allow us to filter the parameters, in order to keep, in the tool we plan to propose for the measure of BRIF, those agreed to be most relevant. Once we apply this system, we will also need to agree where the cut off will be for the tool we aim to present. Table 2 Here we ask: is parameter X relevant to feature Y ? You will find the same agreed parameters as in table 1, to be classified with regard to their relevance to the features described. Here the aim is not to score, but to tick when relevant. This will allow us to better characterize the parameters. The “ways of tracking” feature is relevant for the effectiveness of the indicator. For now, please do not fill in the tables, but comment so that I can eventually modify them and come to agreed tables. You should send back to the group your comments and proposed changes to the tables within one week if possible. Afterwards, I will make the agreed changes and send the amended tables to the whole BRIF group. Discussion The participants also discussed the following points, that I submit to your comments: - The age of the bioresource is important to allow for a fair evaluation: we can assume that two to three years are needed for a BR to achieve both material and visibility. In any case, impact will be low in the first period, but a good quality assurance system should be rewarded and awareness of BRIF can help the bioresource to set its goals with an eye to future impact - Broad consent versus specific consent: is it relevant? - Number of project “promoted” and carried out by the biobank. How to manage negative results and absence of feedback?
- It was agreed not to take into account the role of biobanks in health and the economic
impact of bioresources, but some adjustments may be needed in order not to penalize the diagnostic BB in the BRIF calculation.