Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27110102›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2016

Appointment reminder systems are effective but not optimal: results of a systematic review and evidence synthesis employing realist principles.

Sionnadh Mairi McLean, Andrew Booth, Melanie Gee, Sarah Salway, Mark Cobb, Sadiq Bhanbhro, Susan A Nancarrow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Predictive model-based interventions to reduce outpatient no-shows: a rapid systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Improving Follow-up Attendance for Discharged Emergency Care Patients Using Automated Phone System to Self-schedule: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2021
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

7 authors.

Sionnadh Mairi McLeanFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Andrew BoothSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Melanie GeeCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Sarah SalwaySchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mark CobbTherapeutics & Palliative Care, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Sadiq BhanbhroCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Susan A NancarrowSchool of Health and Human Science, Southern Cross University, East Lismore, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Department of Health 10/2002/49
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and resource inefficiency which impact upon the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health care services are increasingly utilizing reminder systems to manage these negative effects. This study explores the effectiveness of reminder systems for promoting attendance, cancellations, and rescheduling of appointments across all health care settings and for particular patient groups and the contextual factors which indicate that reminders are being employed sub-optimally. We used three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Firstly, using pre-existing models and theories, we developed a conceptual framework to inform our understanding of the contexts and mechanisms which influence reminder effectiveness. Secondly, we performed a review following Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of reminding patients to attend health service appointments. Finally, to supplement the effectiveness information, we completed a review informed by realist principles to identify factors likely to influence non-attendance behaviors and the effectiveness of reminders. We found consistent evidence that all types of reminder systems are effective at improving appointment attendance across a range of health care settings and patient populations. Reminder systems may also increase cancellation and rescheduling of unwanted appointments. "Reminder plus", which provides additional information beyond the reminder function may be more effective than simple reminders (ie, date, time, place) at reducing non-attendance at appointments in particular circumstances. We identified six areas of inefficiency which indicate that reminder systems are being used sub-optimally. Unless otherwise indicated, all patients should receive a reminder to facilitate attendance at their health care appointment. The choice of reminder system should be tailored to the individual service. To optimize appointment and reminder systems, health care services need supportive administrative processes to enhance attendance, cancellation, rescheduling, and re-allocation of appointments to other patients.

Indexed as

attendancecancellationreschedulingTURNUP

Identifiers

PMID27110102
PMCPMC4831598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.