To date, few studies have investigated the factors associated with musculoskeletal patients’ willingness to donate biological samples and their knowledge regarding the use of such samples. We investigated the associations between these distinct knowledge factors, patients’ willingness to donate and socio-demographic factors.

Cross-sectional survey.

Musculoskeletal outpatient clinics across four sites in England, representing varied demographic populations.

A total of 469 adult patients attending musculoskeletal appointments were recruited through convenience sampling.

Ordinal regression models were employed to identify socio-demographic and clinical predictors of patients’ willingness to donate biological samples. Other outcome measures specifically in two areas of patient knowledge include: (1) knowledge of sample use and (2) knowledge of surgical waste tissue value and management.

Only 37% of participants were aware of the term ‘biobank’. Despite this, participants showed a high level of knowledge regarding both biological sample use and surgical waste tissue management, although their understanding varied considerably by ethnicity and education. Participants with no formal education exhibited a lower level of knowledge in both areas related to sample use and surgical waste tissue management for biomedical research ((OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.61; p=0.001); (OR=0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.52, p

Despite low awareness, musculoskeletal patients showed a high willingness to participate in biobanking. However, significant disparities by ethnicity and education persist. Targeted, inclusive engagement strategies are needed to address under-representation and foster informed, equitable participation of musculoskeletal patients in biomedical research.

Cardiovascular (CV) diseases are associated with adverse outcomes. However, attention has typically focused on outcomes considered relevant by doctors, whereas the potential gap in perception and relative importance of outcomes that may exist between patients and doctors has been scarcely explored. Evidence available reports the views of either patients or doctors alone, and data are analysed in aggregate. We investigated this issue by surveying for the first time patients’ and doctors’ opinions simultaneously, on a one-to-one basis.

Survey involving patients with different CV diseases. Each patient and their attending doctor were asked to simultaneously but independently gauge the importance each attached to a predetermined set of outcomes, filling out disease-specific questionnaires. Results were analysed by compositional analysis.

Inpatients and outpatients being seen by cardiologists and internal medicine specialists at hospitals affiliated with the National Health System in Umbria, Italy.

All-comer patients, presenting with one of the following conditions: atrial fibrillation (AF), myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) or considered at high CV risk.

Importance attached to outcomes relative to life path, quality of life, future clinical events.

From 337 paired questionnaires returned, significant differences between patients’ and doctors’ perspectives emerged. Specifically: (1) patients with AF were significantly less concerned about the risk of stroke than doctors; (2) worsening of HF was a greater concern for doctors than patients, whereas patients weighed the risk of disability more; (3) patients with a previous MI, or at high CV risk, weighed the risk of hospitalisation less relevant than doctors, but were significantly more concerned about the risk of disability.

Simultaneous, one-to-one assessment of patients’ and doctors’ opinion shows remarkable differences between patients’ perception and physicians’ judgement concerning the relevance of major CV outcomes. Appreciation and sharing of these issues may inform better tailoring of cardiac care.