SynthesisStudies in health technology and informatics2013
Telephone follow-up in primary care: can interactive voice response calls work?
Synthesis in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Screening for Adverse Drug Events: a Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Trial
- Association between gastrointestinal symptoms and specialty care utilization among colon cancer survivors: a cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Managing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir during COVID-19: pharmacists' experiences from the Perak state of Malaysia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
- A review of mobile health interventions for public private mix in tuberculosis care.Internet interventions · 2021Review
- Article
- Exploration of an automated approach for receiving patient feedback after outpatient acute care visits.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledFollow-up calls after ambulatory visits are not routinely done, yet they can potentially detect and mitigate unresolved problems. Automated calls via an Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) are an innovative way to conduct follow-up, but patients' attitudes toward follow-up calls are unknown. This study assessed 1) patient perceptions about follow-up calls after visits; 2) differences in perceptions between human and IVRS calls; and 3) association between follow-up calls and patient satisfaction with care. Post-visit follow-up calls in two ambulatory care setting were done in two phases. Phase 1 used a human caller and phase 2 used IVRS. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were completed after each phase. Results showed that 88% of patients favor the idea of the calls and those receiving them found them helpful. There were no differences in attitudes between patients receiving calls from clinic staff or from an IVRS. Patients receiving calls had higher patient satisfaction scores than those not called.
conclusionPatients value follow-up calls and they are associated with patient satisfaction with care. IVRS is an innovative way to conduct post-visit follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23920526PMC4117224What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.