PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Rachelle Seguin
AU  - Marshall Godwin
AU  - Susan MacDonald
AU  - Marnie McCall
TI  - E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys.
DP  - 2004 Mar 01
TA  - Canadian Family Physician
PG  - 414--419
VI  - 50
IP  - 3
4099  - http://www.cfp.ca/content/50/3/414.short
4100  - http://www.cfp.ca/content/50/3/414.full
SO  - Can Fam Physician2004 Mar 01; 50
AB  - OBJECTIVE To compare e-mail with regular mail for conducting surveys of physicians. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. SETTING Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS A random sample of physicians listed in the College of Family Physicians of Canada's membership database. INTERVENTIONS Survey delivered by e-mail and by post. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Response rates and times, and completeness and characteristics of responses to the survey. RESULTS Overall response rate was 44.7% (33.6% of e-mail recipients, 52.7% of post recipients who have e-mail, and 47.8% of post recipients without e-mail). While the e-mail rate was significantly lower than for both post groups, e-mail responses were received much faster. There was no significant difference among groups as to completeness of responses, but e-mail responses had more frequent and longer comments. CONCLUSION E-mail provides faster but fewer responses to surveys. Content of structured-response questions was similar in all groups, but e-mail provided more and longer responses to open-ended questions. Where a quick response to a survey is required, e-mail is superior.