Email invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient.
Treweek, Shaun, Barnett, Karen, MacLennan, Graeme, Bonetti, Debbie, Eccles, Martin, Francis, Jill, Jones, Claire, Pitts, Nigel, Ricketts, Ian, Weal, Mark and Sullivan, Frank (2012) Email invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, (7), Summer Issue
Full text not available from this repository.
Objective: To evaluate which of two invitation methods, email or post, was most effective at recruiting general practitioners to an online trial. Study design and setting: Randomised controlled trial. Participants were general practitioners in Scotland, UK. Results: 270 general practitioners were recruited. Using email did not improve recruitment (risk difference = 0.7% (95% confidence interval -2.7% to 4.1%)). Email was, however, simpler to use and cheaper, costing £3.20 per recruit compared to £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 general practitioners to take part in an online trial by email does not adversely affect recruitment and is logistically easier and cheaper than using postal invitations.
|Keywords:||recruitment, randomised controlled trials, email, primary care|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Physical and Applied Science > Electronics and Computer Science > Web & Internet Science
|Date Deposited:||01 Feb 2012 14:25|
|Last Modified:||07 Aug 2012 12:39|
|Contributors:||Treweek, Shaun (Author)
Barnett, Karen (Author)
MacLennan, Graeme (Author)
Bonetti, Debbie (Author)
Eccles, Martin (Author)
Francis, Jill (Author)
Jones, Claire (Author)
Pitts, Nigel (Author)
Ricketts, Ian (Author)
Weal, Mark (Author)
Sullivan, Frank (Author)
|Further Information:||Google Scholar|
|RDF:||RDF+N-Triples, RDF+N3, RDF+XML, Browse.|
Actions (login required)