The Use of Electronic Mail in Biomedical Communication
- Correspondence and reprints: Richard Costello, MD, MRCPI, Department of Medicine, University of Liverpool, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool L9 7AL, United Kingdom; e-mail: 〈rcostell{at}liv.ac.uk〉
- Received 17 June 1999
- Accepted 27 July 1999
Abstract
Objectives To determine whether there are statistically significant differences in the content of electronic mail (e-mail) and conventional mail sent to authors of papers published in medical journals.
Design Prospective study by postal questionnaire. Over two one-month periods, corresponding authors of papers published in medical journals were asked to record details of the correspondence prompted by their publications.
Measurements Conventional and e-mail correspondence received. Reprint requests. Content of correspondence. Quality of correspondence.
Results Eighty-two of 96 authors replied. Fifty received e-mail (mean, 5.7 ± 8.8 e-mails per author) and 72 received conventional mail (15.5 ± 32.8 letters per author) (p < 0.05). Seventy percent of e-mails and only 53% of correspondence sent by conventional mail (p < 0.05) referred to the content of the paper.
Conclusions Publication in general medical journals stimulates more conventional than electronic mail. However, the content of e-mail may be of greater scientific relevance. Electronic mail can be encouraged without fear of diminishing the quality of the communications received.
