Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Nov 13;21(1):247.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01447-y.

Effects of personalized invitation letters on research participation among general practitioners: a randomized trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of personalized invitation letters on research participation among general practitioners: a randomized trial

Patrick Hennrich et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: Personalization of first written contact alone did not improve research participation among general practitioners, which was overall very low.

Trial registration: The study in which the trial was embedded has been registered prospectively at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under registration number DRKS00019219 .

Keywords: Ambulatory health care; General practitioners; Invitation letter; Personalization; Recruitment; Response rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(4):303–321. doi: 10.1177/0163278707307899. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Güthlin C, Beyer M, Erler A, Gensichen J, Hoffmann B, Mergenthal K, et al. Rekrutierung von Hausarztpraxen für Forschungsprojekte. Z Allg Med. 2012;88:173–180.
    1. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Förderprojekte [sponsored projects]. 2020. https://innovationsfonds.g-ba.de/projekte/. Accessed 21 Apr 2021.
    1. Beerheide R. Projekte mit ungewisser Zukunft. Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2020;2:56–57.
    1. Bower P, Wallace P, Ward E, Graffy J, Miller J, Delaney B, et al. Improving recruitment to health research in primary care. Fam Pract. 2009;26(5):391–397. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp037. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources