Hennrich Patrick, Arnold Christine, Wensing Michel
Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Nov 13;21(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01447-y.
Participation of general practitioners is crucial for health care studies. However, recruiting them is an ongoing challenge and participation rates of general practitioners around the globe are often low. One feasible and cost-efficient approach to potentially enhance participation rates among general practitioners are personalized invitation letters, since they may increase one's attention to and appreciation of a study. Still, evidence whether this method actually affects participation is scarce and ambiguous in relation to physicians.
We undertook a randomized trial in a sample of general practitioners from three German states in the context of a large, observational study on physicians' coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular ambulatory care. An intervention group (n = 757 general practitioners) received a personalized invitation to participate in the observational study, the control group (n = 754 general practitioners) received a generic invitation. Both groups were blinded to group assignment. Eventual participation rates as well as the number and types of responses overall were compared between arms. Besides the main intervention, sociodemographic and geographical context factors were considered as well.
The overall participation rate among physicians was 2.6% (2.8% in the intervention group and 2.4% in the control group). No statistically significant effect of personalization on participation of physicians was found (relative risk to participate when receiving a personalized invitation of 1.17 [95%-CI: 0.62, 2.21]). However, the number of responses to the invitation varied significantly between the geographical regions.
Personalization of first written contact alone did not improve research participation among general practitioners, which was overall very low.
The study in which the trial was embedded has been registered prospectively at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under registration number DRKS00019219 .
全科医生的参与对医疗保健研究至关重要。然而,招募他们是一项持续存在的挑战,全球全科医生的参与率往往较低。一种可行且具有成本效益的潜在提高全科医生参与率的方法是个性化邀请函,因为它们可能会增加人们对研究的关注和重视。尽管如此,关于这种方法是否真的会影响参与度的证据在医生群体中仍然很少且不明确。
在一项关于医生对推荐的心血管门诊护理的协调和采用情况的大型观察性研究中,我们对来自德国三个州的全科医生样本进行了一项随机试验。干预组(n = 757名全科医生)收到了参与观察性研究的个性化邀请,对照组(n = 754名全科医生)收到了通用邀请。两组均对分组情况不知情。比较了两组最终的参与率以及总体回复的数量和类型。除了主要干预措施外,还考虑了社会人口统计学和地理背景因素。
医生的总体参与率为2.6%(干预组为2.8%,对照组为2.4%)。未发现个性化对医生参与度有统计学上的显著影响(收到个性化邀请时参与的相对风险为1.17 [95%置信区间:0.62, 2.21])。然而,不同地理区域对邀请的回复数量差异显著。
仅首次书面联系的个性化并没有提高全科医生的研究参与度,总体参与度非常低。
该试验所嵌入的研究已在德国临床试验注册中心(DRKS)进行前瞻性注册,注册号为DRKS00019219 。