Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and resource inefficiency which impact upon the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health care services are increasingly utilizing reminder systems to manage these negative effects. This study explores the effectiveness of reminder systems for promoting attendance, cancellations, and rescheduling of appointments across all health care settings and for particular patient groups and the contextual factors which indicate that reminders are being employed sub-optimally. We used three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Firstly, using pre-existing models and theories, we developed a conceptual framework to inform our understanding of the contexts and mechanisms which influence reminder effectiveness. Secondly, we performed a review following Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of reminding patients to attend health service appointments. Finally, to supplement the effectiveness information, we completed a review informed by realist principles to identify factors likely to influence non-attendance behaviors and the effectiveness of reminders. We found consistent evidence that all types of reminder systems are effective at improving appointment attendance across a range of health care settings and patient populations. Reminder systems may also increase cancellation and rescheduling of unwanted appointments. “Reminder plus”, which provides additional information beyond the reminder function may be more effective than simple reminders (ie, date, time, place) at reducing non-attendance at appointments in particular circumstances. We identified six areas of inefficiency which indicate that reminder systems are being used sub-optimally. Unless otherwise indicated, all patients should receive a reminder to facilitate attendance at their health care appointment. The choice of reminder system should be tailored to the individual service. To optimize appointment and reminder systems, health care services need supportive administrative processes to enhance attendance, cancellation, rescheduling, and re-allocation of appointments to other patients.
When faced with vaccine hesitancy, public health authorities are looking for effective strategies to address this issue. In this paper, the findings of 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis that have examined the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance are presented and discussed. From the literature, there is no strong evidence to recommend any specific intervention to address vaccine hesitancy/refusal. The reviewed studies included interventions with diverse content and approaches that were implemented in different settings and targeted various populations. Few interventions were directly targeted to vaccine hesitant individuals. Given the paucity of information on effective strategies to address vaccine hesitancy, when interventions are implemented, planning a rigorous evaluation of their impact on vaccine hesitancy/vaccine acceptance will be essential.
BACKGROUND: Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and a resource inefficiency that impact on the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health-care services are increasingly utilising reminder systems to counter these negative effects.
OBJECTIVES: This project explores the differential effect of reminder systems for different segments of the population for improving attendance, cancellation and rescheduling of appointments.
DESIGN: Three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to theoretical explanations for appointment behaviour (review 1), the effectiveness of different approaches to reminding patients to attend health service appointments (review 2) and factors likely to influence non-attendance (review 3).
DATA SOURCES: Database searches were conducted on Allied and Complementary Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with Full Text, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (via NHS Evidence from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012), Health Management Information Consortium database, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, The King’s Fund Library Catalogue, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012. Supplementary screening of references of included studies was conducted to identify additional potentially relevant studies. Conceptual papers were identified for review 1, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for review 2 and a range of quantitative and qualitative research designs for review 3.
METHODS: We conducted three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, involving a review of conceptual frameworks of reminder systems and adherence behaviours, a review of the reminder effectiveness literature and a review informed by realist principles to explain the contexts and mechanisms that explain reminder effectiveness. A preliminary conceptual framework was developed to show how reminder systems work, for whom they work and in which circumstances. Six themes emerged that potentially influence the effectiveness of the reminder or whether or not patients would attend their appointment, namely the reminder–patient interaction, reminder accessibility, health-care settings, wider social issues, cancellation and rebookings, and distal/proxy attributes. Standardised review methods were used to investigate the effectiveness of reminders to promote attendance, cancellation or rebooking across all outpatient settings. Finally, a review informed by realist principles was undertaken, using the conceptual framework to explain the context and mechanisms that influence how reminders support attendance, cancellation and rebooking.
RESULTS: A total of 466 papers relating to 463 studies were identified for reviews 2 and 3. Findings from 31 RCTs and 11 separate systematic reviews (review 2 only) revealed that reminder systems are consistently effective at reducing non-attendance at appointments, regardless of health-care setting or patient subgroups. Simple reminders that provide details of timing and location of appointments are effective for increasing attendance at appointments. Reminders that provide additional information over and above the date, time and location of the appointment (‘reminder plus’) may be more effective than simple reminders at reducing non-attendance and may be particularly useful for first appointments and screening appointments; simple reminders may be appropriate thereafter for most patients the majority of the time. There was strong evidence that the timing of reminders, between 1 and 7 days prior to the appointment, has no effect on attendance; substantial numbers of patients do not receive their reminder; reminders promote cancellation of appointments; inadequate structural factors prevent patients from cancelling appointments; and few studies investigated factors that influence the effectiveness of reminder systems for population subgroups.
LIMITATIONS: Generally speaking, the systematic review method seeks to provide a precise answer to a tightly focused question, for which there is a high degree of homogeneity within the studies. A wide range of population types, intervention, comparison and outcomes is included within the RCTs we identified. However, use of this wider approach offers greater analytical capability in terms of understanding contextual and mechanistic factors that would not have been evident in a more narrowly focused review and increases confidence that the findings will have relevance in a wide range of service settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Simple reminders or ‘reminder plus’ should be sent to all patients in the absence of any clear contraindication. Other reminder alternatives may be relevant for key groups of patients: those from a deprived background, ethnic minorities, substance abusers and those with comorbidities and/or illnesses. We are developing a practice guideline that may help managers to further tailor their reminder systems for their service and client groups. We recommend future research activities in three main areas. First, more studies should routinely consider the potential for differential effects of reminder systems between patient groups in order to identify any inequalities and remedies. Second, ‘reminder plus’ systems appear promising, but there is a need for further research to understand how they influence attendance behaviour. Third, further research is required to identify strategies to ‘optimise’ reminder systems and compare performance with current approaches.
FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
KEY MESSAGES: - There is now extensive evidence demonstrating that there is a gap between the health care that patients receive and the practice that is recommended. In both primary and secondary care there are unwarranted variations in practice and in resulting outcomes that cannot be explained by the characteristics of patients.
- While it is difficult to find examples of measures for addressing this issue from all 53 countries of the World Health Organization’s European Region, there are interventions that can be identified in the 27 Member States of the European Union. However, the nature of these measures and the extent to which they are implemented vary considerably.
- Audit and feedback defined as “any summary of clinical performance of health care over a specified period of time aimed at providing information to health professionals to allow them to assess and adjust their performance” is an overarching term used to describe some of the measures that are used to improve professional practice.
- Audit and feedback can be used in all health care settings, involving all health professionals, either as individual professions or in multiprofessional teams.
- In practical terms, health professionals can receive feedback on their performance based on data derived from their routine practice. Health professionals involved in audit and feedback may work either in a team or individually and in primary, secondary or tertiary care.
- While it seems intuitive that health care professionals would be prompted to modify their clinical practice if receiving feedback that it was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines, this is in fact not always the case.
- The available evidence suggests that audit and feedback may be effective in improving professional practice but that the effects are generally small to moderate. Nonetheless, depending on the context, such small effects, particularly if shown to be cost-effective, may still be regarded as worthwhile.
- The benefits of audit and feedback measures are most likely to occur where existing practice is furthest away from what is desired, and when feedback is more intensive.
- Even on the basis of the best evidence available, no strong recommendations can be given regarding the best way to introduce audit and feedback into routine practice. However, decisions about if, and how, this approach can Policy summary be used to improve professional practice must be guided by pragmatism and the consideration of local circumstances. The following scenarios, for example, might indicate suitability for such an approach: the known (or anticipated) level of initial adherence to guidelines or desired practice is low; it is feasible to conduct an audit and the associated costs of collecting the data are low; routinely collected data are reliable and appropriate for use in an audit; and small to moderate improvements in quality would be worthwhile.
- The cost of audit and feedback is highly variable and is determined by local conditions, including the availability of reliable routinely collected data and personnel costs.
- The impact of audit and feedback, with or without additional interventions, should be monitored routinely by auditing practice after the intervention.
Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and resource inefficiency which impact upon the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health care services are increasingly utilizing reminder systems to manage these negative effects. This study explores the effectiveness of reminder systems for promoting attendance, cancellations, and rescheduling of appointments across all health care settings and for particular patient groups and the contextual factors which indicate that reminders are being employed sub-optimally. We used three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Firstly, using pre-existing models and theories, we developed a conceptual framework to inform our understanding of the contexts and mechanisms which influence reminder effectiveness. Secondly, we performed a review following Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of reminding patients to attend health service appointments. Finally, to supplement the effectiveness information, we completed a review informed by realist principles to identify factors likely to influence non-attendance behaviors and the effectiveness of reminders. We found consistent evidence that all types of reminder systems are effective at improving appointment attendance across a range of health care settings and patient populations. Reminder systems may also increase cancellation and rescheduling of unwanted appointments. “Reminder plus”, which provides additional information beyond the reminder function may be more effective than simple reminders (ie, date, time, place) at reducing non-attendance at appointments in particular circumstances. We identified six areas of inefficiency which indicate that reminder systems are being used sub-optimally. Unless otherwise indicated, all patients should receive a reminder to facilitate attendance at their health care appointment. The choice of reminder system should be tailored to the individual service. To optimize appointment and reminder systems, health care services need supportive administrative processes to enhance attendance, cancellation, rescheduling, and re-allocation of appointments to other patients.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
