E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
- 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
| Original language | English |
|---|
| Number of pages | 5 |
|---|
| Pages | 793-797 |
|---|
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |
|---|
| Journal publication date | 2012 |
|---|
| Journal number | 7 |
|---|
| Volume | 86 |
|---|
| Early online date | 4/02/12 |
|---|
| DOIs | |
|---|
| State | Published |
|---|
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. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.