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

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Shaun Treweek^a ; ¹ ; ^{streweek@mac.com} ; Karen Barnett^a ; ¹ ; Graeme MacLennan^b ; ¹ ; Debbie Bonetti^c ; ¹ ; Martin P. Eccles^d ; ¹ ; Jill J. Francis^b ; ¹ ; Claire Jones^e ; ¹ ; Nigel B. Pitts^c ; ¹ ; Ian W. Ricketts^e ; ¹ ; Mark Weal^f ; ¹ ; Frank Sullivan^a ; ¹
• 关键词：Recruitment ; Randomized controlled trials ; E-mail ; Postal ; Reminders ; Primary care
• 刊名：Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
• 出版年：2012
• 期刊代码：148_08954356
• 类别：med
• 出版时间：July, 2012
• 卷：65
• 期：7
• 页码：793-797
• 文件大小：148 K

摘要

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 鈭?.7%to 4.1%]). E-mail was, however, simpler to use and cheaper, costing 拢3.20 per recruit compared with 拢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.