E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient

Abstract Objective To evaluate which of two invitation methods, e-mail or post, was most effective at recruiting general practitioners (GPs) to an online trial. Study Design and Setting Randomized controlled trial. Participants were GPs in Scotland, United Kingdom. Results Two hundred and seventy GP...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2012-07, Vol.65 (7), p.793-797
Main Authors: Treweek, Shaun, Barnett, Karen, MacLennan, Graeme, Bonetti, Debbie, Eccles, Martin P, Francis, Jill J, Jones, Claire, Pitts, Nigel B, Ricketts, Ian W, Weal, Mark, Sullivan, Frank
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Algorithms
Biological and medical sciences
Clinical trial. Drug monitoring
Confidence Intervals
E-mail
Electronic mail
Electronic Mail - economics
Electronic Mail - statistics & numerical data
Electronic mail systems
Epidemiology
Family physicians
Female
Follow-Up Studies
General pharmacology
General Practitioners - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Internal Medicine
Internet
Intervention
Mail
Male
Medical research
Medical sciences
Methods
Patient Selection
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Postal
Postal Service - economics
Postal Service - statistics & numerical data
Primary care
Randomized controlled trials
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Recruitment
Reminder Systems - statistics & numerical data
Reminders
Response rates
Sampling Studies
Scotland - epidemiology
Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objective To evaluate which of two invitation methods, e-mail or post, was most effective at recruiting general practitioners (GPs) to an online trial. Study Design and Setting Randomized controlled trial. Participants were GPs in Scotland, United Kingdom. Results Two hundred and seventy GPs were recruited. Using e-mail did not improve recruitment (risk difference = 0.7% [95% confidence interval −2.7% to 4.1%]). E-mail was, however, simpler to use and cheaper, costing £3.20 per recruit compared with £15.69 for postal invitations. Reminders increased recruitment by around 4% for each reminder sent for both invitation methods. Conclusions In the Scottish context, inviting GPs to take part in an online trial by e-mail does not adversely affect recruitment and is logistically easier and cheaper than using postal invitations.
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010