Email invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient.
Email invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient.
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.
recruitment, randomised controlled trials, email, primary care
Treweek, Shaun
2e309a54-c618-4a59-b0fd-2b878034cb98
Barnett, Karen
bab150da-009d-41de-b80e-e666a5923caa
MacLennan, Graeme
209593f8-0b7c-44fd-9abc-c1ea575b6c61
Bonetti, Debbie
eede767b-0ba3-4e90-87ae-2180c7362422
Eccles, Martin
3f686d76-2b03-41af-986a-9191a906b739
Francis, Jill
99734370-8835-4ed0-9eec-295f0ffa03b6
Jones, Claire
92b1382f-9e0e-40b9-b56c-e7efeac9139a
Pitts, Nigel
7d9921fd-ea21-4d86-bff0-4f1191b6947e
Ricketts, Ian
1f7a2e4c-f922-4977-b3fe-0a320026ec53
Weal, Mark
e8fd30a6-c060-41c5-b388-ca52c81032a4
Sullivan, Frank
54fec8ce-02e9-4aab-b2e6-c32e668458cd
2012
Treweek, Shaun
2e309a54-c618-4a59-b0fd-2b878034cb98
Barnett, Karen
bab150da-009d-41de-b80e-e666a5923caa
MacLennan, Graeme
209593f8-0b7c-44fd-9abc-c1ea575b6c61
Bonetti, Debbie
eede767b-0ba3-4e90-87ae-2180c7362422
Eccles, Martin
3f686d76-2b03-41af-986a-9191a906b739
Francis, Jill
99734370-8835-4ed0-9eec-295f0ffa03b6
Jones, Claire
92b1382f-9e0e-40b9-b56c-e7efeac9139a
Pitts, Nigel
7d9921fd-ea21-4d86-bff0-4f1191b6947e
Ricketts, Ian
1f7a2e4c-f922-4977-b3fe-0a320026ec53
Weal, Mark
e8fd30a6-c060-41c5-b388-ca52c81032a4
Sullivan, Frank
54fec8ce-02e9-4aab-b2e6-c32e668458cd
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.
Abstract
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.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2012
Keywords:
recruitment, randomised controlled trials, email, primary care
Organisations:
Web & Internet Science
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 273154
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/273154
PURE UUID: 542dc2e1-df98-4022-b0a2-505adca52deb
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 01 Feb 2012 14:25
Last modified: 11 Dec 2021 02:59
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Shaun Treweek
Author:
Karen Barnett
Author:
Graeme MacLennan
Author:
Debbie Bonetti
Author:
Martin Eccles
Author:
Jill Francis
Author:
Claire Jones
Author:
Nigel Pitts
Author:
Ian Ricketts
Author:
Mark Weal
Author:
Frank Sullivan
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics