A randomized trial of mail and email recruitment strategies for a physician survey on clinical trial accrual
Open Access
- 19 May 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Vol. 20 (1) , 1-7
Abstract
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 recruitment 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.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Cancer Institute (U54CA163308-05S1)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2TR001103)
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- The State of Oncology Practice in America, 2018: Results of the ASCO Practice Census SurveyJournal of Oncology Practice, 2018
- National Survey of US Oncologists' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns Regarding Herb and Supplement Use by Patients With CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2014
- Results of the 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology National Oncology CensusJournal of Oncology Practice, 2014
- Surveying Clinicians by WebEvaluation & the Health Professions, 2013
- Facilitators and Barriers to Survey Participation by PhysiciansEvaluation & the Health Professions, 2013
- Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: a structured literature review and data from a recent physician surveyBritish Journal of Cancer, 2012
- A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctorsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011
- A National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century: Reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group ProgramJNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2010
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics supportJournal of Biomedical Informatics, 2009
- E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys.2004