Skip to main content

Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients

Brealey, Stephen, Atwell, Christine, Bryan, Stirling, Coulton, Simon, Cox, Helen, Cross, Ben, Fylan, Fiona, Garratt, Andrew, Gilbert, Fiona, Gillan, Maureen, and others. (2007) Using postal randomization to replace telephone randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60 (10). pp. 1046-1051. ISSN 0895-4356. (doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)

The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided. (Contact us about this Publication)
Official URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003

Abstract

Objective: To test the effect of postal randomization on recruitment of patients into a randomized trial in primary care. Study Design and Setting: General practices used a telephone service to randomize patients in our trial. Delays in the start of recruitment at some sites led us to modify the randomization procedure. When new practices took part patients completed and posted baseline materials to the Trial Secretary in York who performed the randomization and informed those concerned of the allocation. Results: Of the 647 practices who were invited to take part, 130 (45%) of 288 agreed to participate using telephone randomization and 155 (43%) of 359 using the postal method. These practices recruited 553 patients from November 2002 to October 2004 across 11 sites in the United Kingdom. The postal method reduced the number of patients recruited by a factor of 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-1.20), or 14%. The number of general practitioners working in a practice significantly increased patient recruitment by a factor of 1.12 (1.05-1.20), whereas practice distance from hospital significantly decreased recruitment by a factor of 0.98 (0.97-0.99). Conclusion: Postal randomization had no significant effect on recruitment of patients into our trial.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.003
Additional information: Times Cited: 0
Uncontrolled keywords: postal, telephone, patient recruitment
Subjects: R Medicine
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions: Faculties > Social Sciences > School of Social Policy Sociology and Social Research > Centre for Health Services Studies
Depositing User: Simon Coulton
Date Deposited: 13 Sep 2010 09:37 UTC
Last Modified: 28 May 2019 13:54 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/16990 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
  • Depositors only (login required):