SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 239 papers, 23 of them syntheses 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.
Improving Outcomes for Youth Visiting the Emergency Department With Mental Health Issues
Text4Peds: Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Medical Student Education
Enhancing Peer-support Experience for Patients Discharged From Acute Psychiatric Care: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Personalized Patient Data and Behavioral Nudges to Improve Adherence to Chronic Cardiovascular Medications (The Nudge Study)
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
239 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Digital tracking, provider decision support systems, and targeted client communication via mobile devices to improve primary health care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Understanding barriers of receiving short message service appointment reminders across African regions: a systematic review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Telemedicine in Malignant and Nonmalignant Hematology: Systematic Review of Pediatric and Adult Studies.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Pooled it
- Short message service (SMS) reminders for childhood immunisation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2021Pooled it
- Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving maternal, neonatal, and child health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving sexual and reproductive health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Computer and mobile technology interventions to promote medication adherence and disease management in people with thalassemia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness of text messaging interventions on prevention, detection, treatment, and knowledge outcomes for sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- One-way SMS and healthcare outcomes in Africa: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Vaccination in England: a review of why business as usual is not enough to maintain coverage.BMC public health · 2018Pooled it
- Patient-Centered eHealth Interventions for Children, Adolescents, and Adults With Sickle Cell Disease: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Text Messaging Interventions on Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- Action on diabetic macular oedema: achieving optimal patient management in treating visual impairment due to diabetic eye disease.Eye (London, England) · 2017Guideline
179 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis review is an update of the original Cochrane review published in July 2012. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs for the health system, leading to delays in diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Patients' forgetfulness is one of the main reasons for missed appointments. Patient reminders may help reduce missed appointments. Modes of communicating reminders for appointments to patients include face-to-face communication, postal messages, calls to landlines or mobile phones, and mobile phone messaging. Mobile phone messaging applications, such as Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Message Service (MMS), could provide an important, inexpensive delivery medium for reminders for healthcare appointments.
objectivesTo update our review assessing the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Secondary objectives include assessment of costs; health outcomes; patients' and healthcare providers' evaluation of the intervention and perceptions of safety; and possible harms and adverse effects associated with the intervention. SEARCH
methodsOriginal searches were run in June 2009. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to August 2012), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to August 2012), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (January 1993 to August 2012) and CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (January 1993 to August 2012). We also reviewed grey literature (including trial registers) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing mobile phone messaging as reminders for healthcare appointments. We only included studies in which it was possible to assess effects of mobile phone messaging independent of other technologies or interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all studies against the inclusion criteria, with any disagreements resolved by a third review author. Study design features, characteristics of target populations, interventions and controls, and results data were extracted by two review authors and confirmed by a third author. Two authors assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. As the intervention characteristics and outcome measures were similar across included studies, we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate an overall effect size. MAIN
resultsWe included eight randomised controlled trials involving 6615 participants. Four of these studies were newly identified during this update.We found moderate quality evidence from seven studies (5841 participants) that mobile text message reminders improved the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders (risk ratio (RR) 1.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.26)). There was also moderate quality evidence from three studies (2509 participants) that mobile text message reminders had a similar impact to phone call reminders (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.02). Low quality evidence from one study (291 participants) suggests that mobile text message reminders combined with postal reminders improved the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to postal reminders alone (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19)). Overall, the attendance to appointment rates were 67.8% for the no reminders group, 78.6% for the mobile phone messaging reminders group and 80.3% for the phone call reminders group. One study reported generally that there were no adverse effects during the study period; none of the studies reported in detail on specific adverse events such as loss of privacy, data misinterpretation, or message delivery failure. Two studies reported that the costs per text message per attendance were respectively 55% and 65% lower than costs per phone call reminder. The studies included in the review did not report on health outcomes or people's perceptions of safety related to receiving reminders by text message. AUTHORS'
conclusionsLow to moderate quality evidence included in this review shows that mobile phone text messaging reminders increase attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders, or postal reminders.Text messaging reminders were similar to telephone reminders in terms of their effect on attendance rates, and cost less than telephone reminders. However, the included studies were heterogeneous and the quality of the evidence therein is low to moderate. Further, there is a lack of information about health effects, adverse effects and harms, user evaluation of the intervention and user perceptions of its safety. The current evidence therefore still remains insufficient to conclusively inform policy decisions.There is a need for more high-quality randomised trials of mobile phone messaging reminders, that measure not only patients' attendance rates, but also focus on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Health outcomes, patients' and healthcare providers' evaluation and perceptions of the safety of the interventions, potential harms, and adverse effects of mobile phone messaging reminders should be assessed. Studies should report message content and timing in relation to the appointment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.