Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJones, Ray
dc.contributor.authorO'Connor, A
dc.contributor.authorBrelsford, J
dc.contributor.authorParsons, N
dc.contributor.authorSkirton, Heather
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-29T11:20:54Z
dc.date.available2016-09-29T11:20:54Z
dc.date.issued2012-12
dc.identifier.issn1472-6947
dc.identifier.issn1472-6947
dc.identifier.other25
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/5507
dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Better use of e-health services by patients could improve outcomes and reduce costs but there are concerns about inequalities of access. Previous research in outpatients suggested that anonymous personal email support may help patients with long term conditions to use e-health, but recruiting earlier in their 'journey' may benefit patients more. This pilot study explored the feasibility and cost of recruiting patients for an e-health intervention in one primary care trust. METHODS: The sample comprised 46 practices with total patient population of 250,000. We approached all practices using various methods, seeking collaboration to recruit patients via methods agreed with each practice. A detailed research diary was kept of time spent recruiting practices and patients. Researcher time was used to estimate costs. Patients who consented to participate were offered email support for their use of the Internet for health. RESULTS: Eighteen practices agreed to take part; we recruited 27 patients, most (23/27) from five practices. Practices agreed to recruit patients for an e-health intervention via waiting room leaflets (16), posters (16), practice nurses (15), doctors giving patients leaflets (5), a study website link (7), inclusion in planned mailshots (2), and a special mailshot to patients selected from practice computers (1). After low recruitment response we also recruited directly in five practices through research assistants giving leaflets to patients in waiting rooms. Ten practices recruited no patients. Those practices that were more difficult to recruit were less likely to recruit patients. Leaving leaflets for practice staff to distribute and placing posters in the practice were not effective in recruiting patients. Leaflets handed out by practice nurses and website links were more successful. The practice with lowest costs per patient recruited (£70) used a special mailshot to selected patients. CONCLUSION: Recruitment via general practice was not successful and was therefore expensive. Direct to consumer methods and recruitment of patients in outpatients to offer email support may be more cost effective. If recruitment in general practice is required, contacting practices by letter and email, not following up non-responding practices, and recruiting patients with selected conditions by special mailshot may be the most cost-effective approach.

dc.format.extent25-
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectRecruitment strategies
dc.subjectGeneral practice
dc.subjectLong term conditions
dc.subjectDigital divide
dc.subjectEmail support
dc.subjectPilot study
dc.titleCosts and difficulties of recruiting patients to provide e-health support: pilot study in one primary care trust
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000304420200001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume12
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1472-6947-12-25
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2012-03-29
dc.identifier.eissn1472-6947
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/1472-6947-12-25
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2012-03-29
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV