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, Jill J. Francis, Claire Jones, Nigel B. Pitts, Ian W. Ricketts, Mark Weal, Frank Sullivan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    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
    Volume86
    Issue number7
    Early online date4 Feb 2012
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Keywords

    • Recruitment
    • Randomized controlled trials
    • E-mail
    • Postal
    • Reminders
    • Primary care

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'E-mail invitations to general practitioners were as effective as postal invitations and were more efficient'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Treweek, S., Barnett, K., MacLennan, G., Bonetti, D., Eccles, M. P., Francis, J. J., Jones, C., Pitts, N. B., Ricketts, I. W., 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, 86(7), 793-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010