Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32336283›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2020

Nudging New York: adaptive models and the limits of behavioral interventions to reduce no-shows and health inequalities.

Kai Ruggeri, Tomas Folke, Amel Benzerga, Sanne Verra, Clara Büttner, Viktoria Steinbeck, Susan Yee, Krisda Chaiyachati

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Primary Care Appointment Completion Rates and Telemedicine Utilization Among Black and Non-Black Patients from 2019 to 2020.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

8 authors.

Kai RuggeriDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th St., New York, NY, 10032, USA. kai.ruggeri@columbia.edu.
Tomas FolkeDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th St., New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Amel BenzergaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th St., New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Sanne VerraDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 722 W 168th St., New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Clara BüttnerFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Science, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229, ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Viktoria SteinbeckFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Science, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229, ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Susan YeeCommunity Healthcare Network, New York City, 60 Madison Ave., New York, NY, 10010, USA.
Krisda ChaiyachatiPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Blockley Hall Room 1313, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS K12 HS026372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMissed healthcare appointments (no-shows) are costly and operationally inefficient for health systems. No-show rates are particularly high for vulnerable populations, even though these populations often require additional care. Few studies on no-show behavior or potential interventions exist specifically for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which care for over 24 million disadvantaged individuals in the United States. The purpose of this study is to identify predictors of no-show behavior and to analyze the effects of a reminder intervention in urban FQHCs in order to design effective policy solutions to a protracted issue in healthcare.

methodsThis is a retrospective observational study using electronic medical record data from 11 facilities belonging to a New York City-based FQHC network between June 2017 to April 2018. This data includes 53,149 visits for 41,495 unique patients. Seven hierarchical generalized linear models and generalized additive models were used to predict no-shows, and multiple regression models evaluated the effectiveness of a reminder. All analyses were conducted in R.

resultsThe strongest predictor of no-show rates in FQHCs is whether or not patients are assigned to empaneled providers (z = - 91.45, p < 10

conclusionsThe limited effects of the reminder intervention suggest the need for more personalized behavioral interventions to reduce no-shows. We recommend that these begin with increasing the use of empaneled providers for preventive care appointments and reducing the lag time between setting the appointment and the actual date of the appointment, at least for individuals with a high rate of no-show. By complementing these with low-intensity, low-cost behavioral interventions, we would expect greater impacts for improved access to care, contributing to the well-being of vulnerable populations.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesReminder SystemsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHealth FacilitiesHealth Status DisparitiesHumansLinear ModelsMaleNew York CityPatient ComplianceRetrospective StudiesVulnerable PopulationsBehavioral interventionsEconomic inequalityFQHCHealthcareHealth inequalityLow-income populationsNo-showsOverbookingPersonalized interventions

Identifiers

PMID32336283
PMCPMC7184714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.