电子邮件邀请全科医生与邮寄邀请同样有效，且更有效率。

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

机构信息

Population Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee DD2 4BF, UK.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jul;65(7):793-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010. Epub 2012 Feb 4.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.010

PMID:22306007

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.

摘要

目的

评估电子邮件或邮寄这两种邀请方式中，哪一种更能有效地招募全科医生（GP）参加在线试验。

研究设计和设置

随机对照试验。参与者是英国苏格兰的全科医生。

结果

共招募了 270 名全科医生。使用电子邮件并没有提高招募效果（风险差异=0.7% [95%置信区间-2.7%至 4.1%]）。然而，电子邮件使用起来更简单，成本也更低，每招募一名参与者的成本为 3.20 英镑，而邮寄邀请的成本为 15.69 英镑。对于这两种邀请方式，每发送一次提醒，招募人数就会增加约 4%。