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, Jillian Joy Francis, Claire Jones, Nigel B Pitts, Ian W Ricketts, Mark Weal, Frank Sullivan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)793-797
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume65
Issue number7
Early online date4 Feb 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2012

Fingerprint

General Practitioners
Postal Service
Scotland
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • recruitment
  • randomized controlled trials
  • e-mail
  • postal
  • reminders
  • primary care

Cite this

E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient. / Treweek, Shaun; Barnett, Karen; Maclennan, Graeme; Bonetti, Debbie; Eccles, Martin P; Francis, Jillian Joy; Jones, Claire; Pitts, Nigel B; Ricketts, Ian W; Weal, Mark; Sullivan, Frank.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 65, No. 7, 07.2012, p. 793-797.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Treweek, S, Barnett, K, Maclennan, G, Bonetti, D, Eccles, MP, Francis, JJ, Jones, C, Pitts, NB, Ricketts, IW, Weal, M & Sullivan, F 2012, 'E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 793-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010
Treweek, Shaun ; Barnett, Karen ; Maclennan, Graeme ; Bonetti, Debbie ; Eccles, Martin P ; Francis, Jillian Joy ; Jones, Claire ; Pitts, Nigel B ; Ricketts, Ian W ; Weal, Mark ; Sullivan, Frank. / E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2012 ; Vol. 65, No. 7. pp. 793-797.
@article{5051cf8c9a8e4907922d3e80ef9de7c0,
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 = "recruitment, randomized controlled trials, e-mail, postal, reminders, primary care",
author = "Shaun Treweek and Karen Barnett and Graeme Maclennan and Debbie Bonetti and Eccles, {Martin P} and Francis, {Jillian Joy} and Claire Jones and Pitts, {Nigel B} and Ricketts, {Ian W} and Mark Weal and Frank Sullivan",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
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 USA",
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, Jillian Joy

AU - Jones, Claire

AU - Pitts, Nigel B

AU - Ricketts, Ian W

AU - Weal, Mark

AU - Sullivan, Frank

N1 - Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

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 - recruitment

KW - randomized controlled trials

KW - e-mail

KW - postal

KW - reminders

KW - primary care

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 793

EP - 797

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 7

ER -