A randomized trial of mail and email recruitment strategies for a physician survey on clinical trial accrual

Background Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. A challenge to capturing physicians’ insights about trials has been low response to surveys. We conducted a study using varying combinations of mail and email to recruit a nationally representative sample of medical, surgical,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC medical research methodology Vol. 20; no. 1; pp. 123 - 7
Main Authors: Murphy, Caitlin C., Craddock Lee, Simon J., Geiger, Ann M., Cox, John V., Ahn, Chul, Nair, Rasmi, Gerber, David E., Halm, Ethan A., McCallister, Katharine, Skinner, Celette Sugg
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London BioMed Central 19.05.2020
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Subjects:
Adult
Cancer research
Clinical trials
Electronic Mail
Electronic mail systems
Health Sciences
Health surveys
Humans
Male
Management
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Methods
Oncology
Participation
Patient Selection
Physicians
Postal Service
Recruiting
Research Article
Response rates
Statistical Theory and Methods
Statistics for Life Sciences
Study design
Surveys
Surveys and Questionnaires
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
United States
ISSN:1471-2288, 1471-2288
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. A challenge to capturing physicians’ insights about trials has been low response to surveys. We conducted a study using varying combinations of mail and email to recruit a nationally representative sample of medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists to complete a survey on trial accrual. Methods We randomly assigned eligible physicians identified from the American Medical Association MasterFile ( n  = 13,251) to mail- or email-based recruitment strategies. Mail-based recruitmen t included a survey packet with: (1) cover letter describing the survey and inviting participation; (2) paper copy of the survey and postage-paid return envelope; and (3) a web link for completing the survey online. Email-based recruitment included an e-mail describing the survey and inviting participation, along with the web link to the survey, and a reminder postcard 2 weeks later. Results Response was higher for mail-based (11.8, 95% CI 11.0–12.6%) vs. email-based (4.5, 95% CI 4.0–5.0%) recruitment. In email-based recruitment , only one-quarter of recipients opened the email, and even fewer clicked on the link to complete the survey. Most physicians in mail-based recruitment responded after the first invitation (362 of 770 responders, 47.0%). A higher proportion of responders vs. non-responders were young (ages 25–44 years), men, and radiation or surgical (vs. medical) oncologists. Conclusions Most physicians assigned to mail-based recruitment actually completed the survey online via the link provided in the cover letter, and those in email-based recruitment did not respond until they received a reminder postcard by mail. Providing the option to return a paper survey or complete it online may have further increased participation in the mail-based group , and future studies should examine how combinations of delivery mode and return options affect physicians’ response to surveys.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1471-2288
1471-2288
DOI:10.1186/s12874-020-01014-x