Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25776581›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015

Appointment "no-shows" are an independent predictor of subsequent quality of care and resource utilization outcomes.

Andrew S Hwang, Steven J Atlas, Patrick Cronin, Jeffrey M Ashburner, Sachin J Shah, Wei He, Clemens S Hong

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07779161 (Effect of Reminder Strategies on No-Show Rates in a Nicotine Cessation Clinic), which is not on this map. Cited by 71 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT07779161 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Reminder Strategies on No-Show Rates in a Nicotine Cessation Clinic: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical University of GdanskRan2026 to 2027Enrolled300ConditionsBehavioral Intervention, Nicotine AddictionArmsStandard phone call, phone call with MINDSPACE elements
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Predictive model-based interventions to reduce outpatient no-shows: a rapid systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andrew S HwangTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. andrewshwang86@gmail.com.
Steven J AtlasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Patrick CroninLab of Computer Science, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeffrey M AshburnerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Sachin J ShahDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Wei HeDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Clemens S HongDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying individuals at high risk for suboptimal outcomes is an important goal of healthcare delivery systems. Appointment no-shows may be an important risk predictor.

objectivesTo test the hypothesis that patients with a high propensity to "no-show" for appointments will have worse clinical and acute care utilization outcomes compared to patients with a lower propensity.

designWe calculated the no-show propensity factor (NSPF) for patients of a large academic primary care network using 5 years of outpatient appointment data. NSPF corrects for patients with fewer appointments to avoid over-weighting of no-show visits in such patients. We divided patients into three NSPF risk groups and evaluated the association between NSPF and clinical and acute care utilization outcomes after adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.

participantsA total of 140,947 patients who visited a network practice from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009, and were either connected to a primary care physician or to a primary care practice, based on a previously validated algorithm. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were incomplete colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening, and above-goal hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels at 1-year follow-up, and hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the subsequent 3 years. KEY

resultsCompared to patients in the low NSPF group, patients in the high NSPF group (n=14,081) were significantly more likely to have incomplete preventive cancer screening (aOR 2.41 [2.19-.66] for colorectal, aOR 1.85 [1.65-.08] for cervical, aOR 2.93 [2.62-3.28] for breast cancer), above-goal chronic disease control measures (aOR 2.64 [2.22-3.14] for HbA1c, aOR 1.39 [1.15-1.67] for LDL], and increased rates of acute care utilization (aRR 1.37 [1.31-1.44] for hospitalization, aRR 1.39 [1.35-1.43] for emergency department visits).

conclusionsNSPF is an independent predictor of suboptimal primary care outcomes and acute care utilization. NSPF may play an important role in helping healthcare systems identify high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesNo-Show PatientsAdultAgedChronic DiseaseEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesForecastingHealth ResourcesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareTreatment OutcomeHealth disparitiesIdentification of high-risk patientsNo-showPsychosocial issues in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID25776581
PMCPMC4579240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.