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, Jill J.; Jones, Claire; Pitts, Nigel B.; Ricketts, Ian W.; Weal, Mark; Sullivan, Frank.
In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 86, No. 7, 2012, p. 793-797.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient
A1 - Treweek,Shaun
A1 - Barnett,Karen
A1 - MacLennan,Graeme
A1 - Bonetti,Debbie
A1 - Eccles,Martin P.
A1 - Francis,Jill J.
A1 - Jones,Claire
A1 - Pitts,Nigel B.
A1 - Ricketts,Ian W.
A1 - Weal,Mark
A1 - Sullivan,Frank
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
Y1 - 2012
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. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KW - Recruitment
KW - Randomized controlled trials
KW - E-mail
KW - Postal
KW - Reminders
KW - Primary care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=yv4JPVwI&eid=2-s2.0-84856423208&md5=d29faa97145d50a7b42447c99e31ae17
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010
M1 - Article
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
SN - 0895-4356
IS - 7
VL - 86
SP - 793
EP - 797
ER -