Collaboration between biobanks and research teams is essential for advancing scientific research, particularly in studies involving human subjects; however, various challenges can hinder success. We shed light on key obstacles and challenges encountered during a partnership between a clinical trial and an institutional biobank at a pediatric hospital. In aiming to recruit pediatric biobank participants for a genomic clinical research study, key challenges included low-yield recruitment tactics, independent operations and structures of the biobank and research teams, and transition to a new biobank model resulting in struggles with participant reengagement. This article explores some of the obstacles experienced by the research and biobanks teams, while providing key lessons aimed at guiding others in planning future collaborations for trial recruitment, enrollment, and implementation. We also highlight the significant benefits that can arise when biobanks and research teams work together strategically.
TeareHJ, MorrisonM, WhitleyEA, KayeJ. Towards ‘Engagement 2.0’: Insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants. Digit Health, 2015; 1:2055207615605644.
2.
DamschroderLJ, PrittsJL, NebloMA, KalarickalRJ, CreswellJW, HaywardRA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med, 2007; 64(1):223–235.
3.
MesterJL, MercerM, GoldenbergA, MooreRA, EngC, SharpRR. Communicating with biobank participants: Preferences for receiving and providing updates to researchers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2015; 24(4):708–712.
4.
MorainSR, BricklerA, AliJ, et al.Ethical considerations for sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2025; 22(2):248–254.
5.
LanderJ, HeibergerA, Von SommoggyJ, et al.Intentional and actional components of engaged participation in public health research studies: Qualitative synthesis of a recruitment and retention process into the theory-informed INTACT-RS framework. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2023; 23(1):17.
6.
HathcockMA, KirtC, RyuE, et al.Characteristics associated with recruitment and re-contact in Mayo Clinic Biobank. Front Public Health, 2020; 8:9.
7.
DomaradzkiJ, PawlikowskiJ. Public attitudes toward biobanking of human biological material for research purposes: A literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019; 16(12):2209.
8.
HarrellHL, RothsteinMA. Biobanking research and privacy laws in the United States. J Law Med Ethics, 2016; 44(1):106–127.
9.
ThompsonR, McNameeMJ. Consent, ethics and genetic biobanks: The case of the Athlome project. BMC Genomics, 2017; 18(Suppl 8):830.
10.
MuradAM, MyersMF, ThompsonSD, FisherR, AntommariaAHM. A qualitative study of adolescents’ understanding of biobanks and their attitudes toward participation, re‐contact, and data sharing. Am J Med Genet A, 2017; 173(4):930–937.
11.
MarsoloK, CorsmoJ, BarnesMG, et al.Challenges in creating an opt-in biobank with a registrar-based consent process and a commercial EHR. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2012; 19(6):1115–1118.
12.
GartelG, ScuderiH, ServayC. Implementation of common rule changes to the informed consent form: A research staff and institutional review board collaboration. Ochsner J, 2020; 20(1):76–80.
13.
BlumlingAA, McGowanML, ProwsCA, et al.Engaging adolescents and young adults in decisions about return of genomic research results: Study protocol for a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 2024; 24(1):391.
14.
Engaging Adolescents in Decisions About Return of Genomic Research Results. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04481061. May 15, 2025. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04481061 [Last accessed: June22, 2025].
15.
HarrisonT, SinclairJ, MartinLJ, et al.Representation is Power: Traditional, Hybrid, and Digital Recruitment Results from a Non-Randomized Clinical Trial Engaging Adolescents. 2025. [Manuscript submitted for review].
16.
KaliaSS, AdelmanK, BaleSJ, et al.Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2. 0): A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med, 2017; 19(2):249–255.
MyersMF, MartinLJ, ProwsCA. Adolescents’ and parents’ genomic testing decisions: Associations with age, race, and sex. J Adolesc Health, 2020; 66(3):288–295.
19.
McBrideO, MorganK, McGeeH. Recruitment using mobile telephones in an Irish general population sexual health survey: Challenges and practical solutions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012; 12:45–10.
20.
JohnsonVA, Powell-YoungYM, TorresER, SpruillIJ. A systematic review of strategies that increase the recruitment and retention of African American adults in genetic and genomic studies. The ABNF journal: Official journal of the Association of Black Nursing Faculty in Higher Education. Inc, 2011; 22(4):84.
21.
Owen-SmithAA, SesayMM, LynchFL, MassoloM, CerrosH, CroenLA. Factors influencing participation in biospecimen research among parents of youth with mental health conditions. Public Health Genomics, 2020; 23(3–4):122–132.
ThielDB, PlattJ, PlattT, et al.Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics, 2015; 18(1):26–39.
25.
WilliamsH, SpencerK, SandersC, et al.Dynamic consent: A possible solution to improve patient confidence and trust in how electronic patient records are used in medical research. JMIR Med Inform, 2015; 3(1):e3525.
26.
KayeJ, WhitleyEA, LundD, MorrisonM, TeareH, MelhamK. Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet, 2015; 23(2):141–146.
27.
TeareHJ, PrictorM, KayeJ. Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: The story so far. Eur J Hum Genet, 2021; 29(4):649–656.
28.
KalankeshLR, MonagheshE. Utilization of EHRs for clinical trials: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2024; 24(1):70.
29.
NesbittGC, MurphyPA. CRID-A unique, universal, patient-generated identifier to facilitate collaborative rare disease clinical research. Inform Med Unlocked, 2022; 31:100973.
30.
DykesC, GardnerC, ChangJ, et al.Implementation of MyChart for recruitment at an academic medical center. J Clin Transl Sci, 2024; 8(1):e160.
