Discovery - University of Dundee - Online Publications

Library & Learning Centre

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

Standard

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 journalArticle

Harvard

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 86, no. 7, pp. 793-797., 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

APA

Treweek, S., Barnett, K., MacLennan, G., Bonetti, D., Eccles, M. P., Francis, J. J., ... Sullivan, F. (2012). E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 86(7), 793-797. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

Vancouver

Treweek S, Barnett K, MacLennan G, Bonetti D, Eccles MP, Francis JJ et al. E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2012;86(7):793-797. Available from: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

Author

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

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 86, No. 7, 2012, p. 793-797.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bibtex - Download

@article{236ef33a5d4d4438aca0add8a9b2b35e,
title = "E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient",
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, {Jill J.} and Claire Jones and Pitts, {Nigel B.} and Ricketts, {Ian W.} and Mark Weal and Frank Sullivan",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010",
volume = "86",
number = "7",
pages = "793--797",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

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?scp=84856423208&partnerID=8YFLogxK

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 -

Documents

Library & Learning Centre

Contact | Accessibility | Policy