Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22895971›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders.

Helen Atherton, Prescilla Sawmynaden, Barbara Meyer, Josip Car

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Helen AthertonDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. helen.atherton@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Prescilla Sawmynaden
Barbara Meyer
Josip Car

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmail is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review considers the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and reminders for attendance; particularly scheduling, rescheduling and cancelling healthcare appointments, and providing prompts/reminders for attendance at appointments.

objectivesTo assess the effects of using email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, compared to other forms of coordinating appointments and reminders, on outcomes for health professionals, patients and carers, and health services, including harms. SEARCH

methodsWe searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010),and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists and contacting authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of interventions that use email for scheduling health appointments, for reminders for a scheduled health appointment or for ongoing coordination of health appointments and that took the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of retrieved citations. No studies were identified for inclusion. Consequently, no data collection or analysis was possible. MAIN

resultsNo studies met the inclusion criteria, therefore there are no results to report on the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders. AUTHORS'

conclusionsNo conclusions on the effects of using email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders could be made and thus no recommendations for practice can be stipulated. Given the significant theoretical opportunities that email presents, there is a need for rigorous studies addressing the review question, but this may involve addressing barriers concerning trial development and implementation.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesElectronic MailPatient ComplianceReminder SystemsCase ManagementHumans

Identifiers

PMID22895971
PMCPMC11627138

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.