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

Shaun Treweek; Karen Barnett; Graeme MacLennan; Debbie Bonetti; Martin P. Eccles; Jill J. Francis; Claire Jones; Nigel B. Pitts; Ian W. Ricketts; Mark Weal; Frank Sullivan

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

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

Shaun Treweek^*, Karen Barnett, Graeme MacLennan, Debbie Bonetti, Martin P. Eccles, Jill J. Francis, Claire Jones, Nigel B. Pitts, Ian W. Ricketts, Mark Weal, Frank Sullivan

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	793-797
Number of pages	5
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	65
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2012

Keywords

E-mail
Postal
Primary care
Randomized controlled trials
Recruitment
Reminders

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

Cite this

@article{c64370ef917344f2a52e549ba53a3f57,

title = "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 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.",

keywords = "E-mail, Postal, Primary care, Randomized controlled trials, Recruitment, Reminders",

author = "Shaun Treweek and Karen Barnett and Graeme MacLennan and Debbie Bonetti and Eccles, {Martin P.} and Francis, {Jill J.} and Claire Jones and Pitts, {Nigel B.} and Ricketts, {Ian W.} and Mark Weal and Frank Sullivan",

year = "2012",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010",

language = "English",

volume = "65",

pages = "793--797",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient

AU - Treweek, Shaun

AU - Barnett, Karen

AU - MacLennan, Graeme

AU - Bonetti, Debbie

AU - Eccles, Martin P.

AU - Francis, Jill J.

AU - Jones, Claire

AU - Pitts, Nigel B.

AU - Ricketts, Ian W.

AU - Weal, Mark

AU - Sullivan, Frank

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - E-mail

KW - Postal

KW - Primary care

KW - Randomized controlled trials

KW - Recruitment

KW - Reminders

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861637148&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 22306007

AN - SCOPUS:84861637148

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 65

SP - 793

EP - 797

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

IS - 7

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this