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

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

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

15 Citations (Scopus)

8 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	793-797
Number of pages	5
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	65
Issue number	7
Early online date	4 Feb 2012
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010
Publication status	Published - Jul 2012

Keywords

recruitment
randomized controlled trials
e-mail
postal
reminders
primary care

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

Treweek 2012
NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, [VOL 65, ISSUE 7, (2012)] DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010
Accepted author manuscript, 61.7 KB

Cite this

@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",

year = "2012",

month = jul,

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

language = "English",

volume = "65",

pages = "793--797",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

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

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

C2 - 22306007

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

Fingerprint

Cite this