Introduction: The use of human-derived samples is vital to numerous areas of biological and medical research. Despite this, researchers often find or anticipate difficulty in sourcing samples. There are ongoing efforts to increase the visibility and accessibility of UK human tissue biobanking, but minimal (if any) research on the reasons behind researchers' choice of sample source has been undertaken. We have analyzed UK researchers' motivations on using their preferred sample sources and their perceived barriers to human sample use. Methods: The study was based on an online survey of academic and industry researchers, followed by focus groups, with participants across the United Kingdom. Both the survey and focus groups probed participants' views on the barriers to finding and using human samples in research. Results: One hundred ninety-eight academic and industry researchers completed the survey on their human sample use, and five focus groups consisting of 21 total participants took place. The top cited reasons for choosing sources included the availability of linked clinical data (40%), the geographical location of the resource (39%), and preexisting collaboration (33%). Focus group participants highlighted their strong preference for local or known sample sources, which were preferred because additional scientific and logistical input could be obtained for their work and they were more confident that the samples would be of good quality. Discussion: We found that there were significant perceptions of governance barriers to sample access. As a consequence, researchers preferred local and known suppliers because of the perception that these could assist with the governance, would be reliable, and able to provide the additional support they required. Equally, data availability was a major contributor to the selection of a new source of samples. These observations are of significant value to those seeking to improve the access to existing sample resources via online discovery tools.
Keywords: discovery of samples; peer network resources; quality; researcher attitudes.