Cargando…

A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians

Despite their low cost, the use of email invitations to distribute surveys to medical practitioners have been associated with lower response rates. This research compares the difference in response rates from using email approach plus online completion rather than a mailed invitation letter plus a c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harrap, Benjamin, Taylor, Tamara, Russell, Grant, Scott, Anthony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10443851/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37607168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289628
_version_ 1785093926508560384
author Harrap, Benjamin
Taylor, Tamara
Russell, Grant
Scott, Anthony
author_facet Harrap, Benjamin
Taylor, Tamara
Russell, Grant
Scott, Anthony
author_sort Harrap, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description Despite their low cost, the use of email invitations to distribute surveys to medical practitioners have been associated with lower response rates. This research compares the difference in response rates from using email approach plus online completion rather than a mailed invitation letter plus a choice of online or paper completion. A parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted during the 11(th) annual wave of the nationally representative Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey of doctors. The control group was invited using a mailed paper letter (including a paper survey plus instructions to complete online) and three mailed paper reminders. The intervention group was approached in the same way apart from the second reminder when they were approached by email only. The primary outcome is the response rate and the statistical analysis was blinded. 18,247 doctors were randomly allocated to the control (9,125) or intervention group (9,127), with 9,108 and 9,107 included in the analysis. Using intention to treat analysis, the response rate in the intervention group was 35.92% compared to 37.59% in the control group, a difference of -1.66 percentage points (95% CI: -3.06 to -0.26). The difference was larger for General Practitioners (-2.76 percentage points, 95% CI: -4.65 to -0.87) compared to other specialists (-0.47 percentage points, 95% CI: -2.53 to 1.60). For those who supplied an email address, the average treatment effect on the treated was higher at -2.63 percentage points (95% CI: -4.50 to -0.75) for all physicians, -3.17 percentage points (95% CI: -5.83 to -0.53) for General Practitioners, and -2.1 percentage points (95% CI: -4.75 to 0.56) for other specialists. For qualified physicians, using email to invite participants to complete a survey leads to lower response rates compared to a mailed letter. Lower response rates need to be traded off with the lower costs of using email rather than mailed letters.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10443851
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104438512023-08-23 A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians Harrap, Benjamin Taylor, Tamara Russell, Grant Scott, Anthony PLoS One Research Article Despite their low cost, the use of email invitations to distribute surveys to medical practitioners have been associated with lower response rates. This research compares the difference in response rates from using email approach plus online completion rather than a mailed invitation letter plus a choice of online or paper completion. A parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted during the 11(th) annual wave of the nationally representative Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey of doctors. The control group was invited using a mailed paper letter (including a paper survey plus instructions to complete online) and three mailed paper reminders. The intervention group was approached in the same way apart from the second reminder when they were approached by email only. The primary outcome is the response rate and the statistical analysis was blinded. 18,247 doctors were randomly allocated to the control (9,125) or intervention group (9,127), with 9,108 and 9,107 included in the analysis. Using intention to treat analysis, the response rate in the intervention group was 35.92% compared to 37.59% in the control group, a difference of -1.66 percentage points (95% CI: -3.06 to -0.26). The difference was larger for General Practitioners (-2.76 percentage points, 95% CI: -4.65 to -0.87) compared to other specialists (-0.47 percentage points, 95% CI: -2.53 to 1.60). For those who supplied an email address, the average treatment effect on the treated was higher at -2.63 percentage points (95% CI: -4.50 to -0.75) for all physicians, -3.17 percentage points (95% CI: -5.83 to -0.53) for General Practitioners, and -2.1 percentage points (95% CI: -4.75 to 0.56) for other specialists. For qualified physicians, using email to invite participants to complete a survey leads to lower response rates compared to a mailed letter. Lower response rates need to be traded off with the lower costs of using email rather than mailed letters. Public Library of Science 2023-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10443851/ /pubmed/37607168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289628 Text en © 2023 Harrap et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Harrap, Benjamin
Taylor, Tamara
Russell, Grant
Scott, Anthony
A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
title A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
title_full A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
title_fullStr A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
title_full_unstemmed A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
title_short A randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
title_sort randomised controlled trial of email versus mailed invitation letter in a national longitudinal survey of physicians
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10443851/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37607168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289628
work_keys_str_mv AT harrapbenjamin arandomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT taylortamara arandomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT russellgrant arandomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT scottanthony arandomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT harrapbenjamin randomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT taylortamara randomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT russellgrant randomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians
AT scottanthony randomisedcontrolledtrialofemailversusmailedinvitationletterinanationallongitudinalsurveyofphysicians