What does this research mean for the field?

Combining targeted online community outreach with in-person recruitment effectively achieves a racially diverse and publicly insured sample of emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes for clinical trials. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to examine recruitment outcomes for a trial targeting racially diverse emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes.

June 7, 2026

1614-P: Designing for Access: Successful National Recruitment of Medicaid-Insured and Racially Diverse Emerging Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Key Points

The aim is to examine recruitment outcomes for a trial targeting racially diverse emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes.
N=192 enrolled in iHERO through online and clinic-based recruitment strategies.
Community partners’ social media and targeted email listservs were utilized for online recruitment.
Four clinics implemented site-specific methods for in-person recruitment.
Out of 870 screened individuals, 192 (22.1%) enrolled in the trial.
Common barriers included capped racial and insurance strata (343, 60.1%) and communication issues post-screener (222, 38.9%).
Effective recruitment strategies combined online outreach and in-person methods, yielding a diverse sample.

Abstract

Introduction and Objective: Recruiting publicly insured and racially/ethnically diverse emerging adults (18-30) with T1D into clinical trials is challenging, with limited evidence of guiding strategies. We examined recruitment outcomes from iHERO, a national remote RCT assessing a financial/insurance literacy Toolkit in emerging adults with T1D, targeting a ~50% public insurance/uninsured and/or racially/ethnically diverse sample. Methods: N=192 enrolled in iHERO via: 1. Online recruitment (A. Community partners’ social media, B. Targeted email listservs); 2. Clinic-based recruitment (4 clinics used site-specific previously successful methods such as MyChart or in-person). Primary outcomes were enrollment yield and sociodemographics, while secondary outcomes were barriers to enrollment. Results: Bots (n=1593) identified by pre- and post-eligibility screening forms were excluded. Of the N=870 reliable individuals screened, n=192 (22.1%) enrolled. Table 1 displays enrollment and characteristics by recruitment group. The most common enrollment barriers were capped racial/insurance strata (n=343, 60.1%) and inability to reach after completion of the online screener (n=222, 38.9%). Conclusion: Recruitment strategies influenced enrollment volume and equity. Combining targeted online community outreach and in-person recruitment achieved a diverse sample. Disclosure A. Kinsella: None. J. Rieke: None. T. Calvache: None. K. Bass: None. D.A. Grant: None. C.S. Perez: None. A. Kanchibhatla: None. M. Roche: None. A. Rieger: None. M. Litchman: Research Support; Current; National Institutes of Health, American Diabetes Association, Dexcom, Inc. N.A. Allen: Research Support; Current; Dexcom, Inc. J. Raymond: None. B. Hatipoglu: Consultant; Ended; Lilly. Other - Site PI for a study; Ended; Diasome. J. Blanchette: Advisory Panel; Ended; Eli Lilly and Company. Advisory Panel; Current; MannKind Corporation. Research Support; Current; Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, American Heart Association. Speaker's Bureau; Current; Insulet Corporation. Consultant; Current; Sequel MedTech. Consultant; Ended; Embecta. Research Support; Current; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Funding Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (G-2305-05992)

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay