Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16034918›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Patient reminder and patient recall systems to improve immunization rates.

Julie C Jacobson Vann, Peter Szilagyi

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 164 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
164citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

164 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 354 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections--full version.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2011
    Guideline
  15. Pooled it
  16. Seasonal influenza vaccination campaigns for health care personnel: systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2010
    Pooled it
  17. Patient reminder and patient recall systems to improve immunization rates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

104 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julie C Jacobson VannUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Dept. of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, Ground floor, Neurosciences Hospital, CB 7600, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7600, USA. jvann@med.unc.edu
Peter Szilagyi
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result of low immunization rates, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care and large demands on primary care physicians, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. A common theme across immunization programs in all nations involves the challenge of determining the denominator of eligible recipients (e.g. all children who should receive the measles vaccine) and identifying the best strategy to ensure high vaccination rates. Strategies have focused on patient-oriented interventions (e.g., patient reminders), provider interventions and system interventions. One intervention strategy involves patient reminder and recall systems.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of patient reminder and recall systems in improving immunization rates and compare the effects of various types of reminders in different settings or patient populations. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search was performed for the initial review using MEDLINE (1966-1998) and four other bibliographic databases: EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and CAB Abstracts. Authors also performed a search of The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) register in April 2001 to update the review. Two authors reviewed the lists of titles and abstracts and used the inclusion criteria to mark potentially relevant articles for full review. The reference lists of all relevant articles and reviews were back searched for additional studies. Publications of abstracts, proceedings from scientific meetings and files of study collaborators were also searched for references. In December 2004 the EPOC register was searched to identify relevant articles to update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: STUDY

designRandomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies written in English. TYPES OF

participantsHealth care personnel who deliver immunizations and children (birth to 18 years) or adults (18 years and up) who receive immunizations in any setting. TYPES OF

interventionsAny intervention that falls within the EPOC scope (See Group Details) and that includes patient reminder or recall systems, or both, in at least one arm of the study. TYPES OF OUTCOME MEASURES: Immunization rates or the proportion of the target population up-to-date on recommended immunizations. Outcomes were acceptable for either individual vaccinations (e.g. influenza vaccination) or standard combinations of recommended vaccinations (e.g. all recommended vaccinations by a specific date or age). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: DATA COLLECTION: Each study was read independently by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by a formal reconciliation process to achieve consensus. ANALYSIS: Results are presented for individual studies as relative rates for randomized controlled trials and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before and after studies. Pooled results for RCTs only were presented using the random effects model. MAIN

resultsFive new studies were added for this update. Increases in immunization rates due to reminders were in the range of 1 to 20 percentage points. Reminders were effective for childhood vaccinations (OR = 1.45, 95% CI =1.28, 1.66), childhood influenza vaccinations (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.65, 4.98), adult pneumococcus, tetanus, and Hepatitis B (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.21, 3.99), and adult influenza vaccinations (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.31, 2.09). All types of reminders were effective (postcards, letters, telephone or autodialer calls), with telephone being the most effective but most costly. AUTHORS'

conclusionsPatient reminder and recall systems in primary care settings are effective in improving immunization rates within developed countries.

Indexed as

Reminder SystemsAdultChildHumansImmunizationImmunization ProgramsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16034918
PMCPMC6485483
OpenAlexW1587028875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.