| Atherton et al., 201242 | To assess effects of using e-mail for co-ordination of health-care appointments and attendance reminders, compared with other forms of co-ordinating appointments and reminders, on outcomes for health professionals, patients and carers, and health services, including harms | Cochrane Empty Review with no eligible studies. A limitation of this review is the date of the search. The search was conducted in January 2010. Length of time between search date and publication of review means it is possible that relevant studies have been published in interim period | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Car et al., 201243 | To assess effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at health-care appointments. Secondary objectives include assessment of patient and health-care provider evaluations of intervention, costs and possible risks and harms associated with intervention | Cochrane review. Included studies were of varying methodological quality; most provided insufficient information to accurately assess risk of bias. Sequence generation for randomisation considered adequate (although randomisation method unclear in one study) but in two studies it was not clear whether or not, and how, allocation was concealed. Lack of blinding in all studies can be partly explained by interactive nature of text message interventions, which does not permit blinding of participants or health-care providers. Potential bias from apparent lack of blinding of outcome assessors | Included four RCTs involving 3547 participants. Three studies with moderate quality evidence showed that mobile text message reminders improved rate of attendance compared with no reminders (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17). One low-quality study reported that mobile text message reminders with postal reminders, compared with postal reminders, improved rate of attendance at health-care appointments (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.19). However, two studies of moderate quality showed that mobile phone text message reminders and phone call reminders had a similar impact on health-care attendance (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03). Costs/attendance of SMS lower compared with phone reminders. No studies reported harms or adverse effects of the intervention, nor health outcomes or user perception of safety related to the intervention | Further research should focus on older patients, given that this population has, on average, more health-care appointments and uses mobile phones less frequently than the younger population |
| Free et al., 201345 | To quantify effectiveness of mobile technology-based interventions delivered to health-care providers or to support health-care services, on any health or health-care service outcome | Identified as meeting CRD criteria. No full evaluation yet available | Pooled effect on appointment attendance using text message (SMS) reminders vs. no reminder increased, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.07, I2 = 6%). Pooled effects on number of cancelled appointments was not significantly increased RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.30). No difference in attendance using SMS reminders vs. other reminders (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02). SMS reminders no more effective than postal or phone call reminders, and texting reminders to patients who persistently missed appointments did not significantly change number of cancelled appointments. SMS appointment reminders have modest benefits and may be appropriate for implementation | This review presents no findings or implications for specific subgroups |
| Glynn et al., 201046 | To evaluate the effectiveness of reminders on improving the follow-up of patients with hypertension | Cochrane review. Included RCTs with a contemporaneous control group. The methodological quality of included studies was generally poor to moderate with 40% of included articles describing their randomisation processes and only 19% describing adequate concealed allocation processes | Included eight RCTs investigating appointment reminder systems. All but one of the RCTs was associated with improved outcomes. The pooled results favoured appointment reminder systems for follow-up of patients (OR of being lost to follow-up 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) | This review presents no findings or implications for specific subgroups |
| Guy et al., 201244 | To assess the effectiveness of SMS reminders at increasing the uptake of appointments in health-care settings | Although searched grey literature still possible some evaluations not identified, particularly those with negative outcomes. Unable to assess possibility of effect according to clinical reasons for attending, as few papers present this information. Clinical presentation could affect priority placed by patients on need for keeping an appointment. To maximise value of future evaluations, studies should collect and report information on clinical reason for attendance as well as the visit status (new and follow-up) | Summary effect from RCTs was 1.48 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.72). No significant subgroup differences by clinic type (primary care clinics, hospital outpatient clinics) or message timing (24, 48, and 72 + hours before scheduled appointment). SMS reminders substantially increase likelihood of attending clinic appointments. SMS reminders appear to be simple and efficient option for health services to improve service delivery, as well as bringing health benefits for patients who receive the reminders | No significant subgroup differences by target age group (paediatric, adult, older). Age classification based on median age of patient receiving SMS reminders, or specification of clinic type as paediatric. RCTs demonstrated SMS reminders effective in wide age range from paediatric to older. Mobile usage data demonstrate that over 90% of population in many countries own mobile phones, but uptake is higher in younger people.108 As younger patients have higher non-attendance rates at clinical services,110 SMS reminders may be more beneficial in this group. However, older patients have considerably more health appointments each year, often at outpatient clinics where non-attendance costs UK NHS estimated £790M per year162 |
| Hasvold and Wootton, 201147 | (1) What is best estimate of effect of sending reminders on non-attendance rates? (2) Are there any differences in non-attendance when using reminders sent manually (i.e. from phones operated by a human) or automatically (i.e. by SMS text messages or by automated voice recordings)? (3) Does time at which reminder is sent influence effect on non-attendance rates? (4) What are costs and benefits of using reminders? | Not classed as systematic review by DARE (CRD). PubMed only searched | Weighted mean relative change in non-attendance was 34% of baseline non-attendance rate. Automated reminders less effective than manual phone calls (29% vs. 39% of baseline value). No difference in non-attendance rate, whether reminder sent day before or week before. Cost and savings not measured formally, but almost half included cost estimates. Average cost of using either SMS, automated telephone calls or telephone calls was €0.41 per reminder | All studies except one244 showed positive effect from using reminders. (Patients themselves chose in advance whether they wished to receive reminder or not – potential bias in intervention group.) Overall no-show rate (outpatients in vascular laboratory) was 12% (average 7.6 missed appointments/week: gross annual revenue loss of US$89,107 based on ultrasound costs). Of 8766 patients offered automated reminders, only 53% agreed to receive calls. No-show rate significantly greater for patients choosing automated reminders (8.9% vs. 5.9%; p < 0.0001) |
| Henderson 200848 | To assess the effectiveness of appointment reminders as a means of increasing attendance and reducing ‘Did not Attend’ rates at new outpatient appointments | Not classed as systematic review by DARE (CRD). Undertaken by single reviewer, with possibility of reviewer bias. Hand-searching not performed. Non-English language papers not included. Relevant material may have been missed. Methodological quality of evidence base generally poor. Several trials failed to describe randomisation. In many studies blinding was poorly addressed, study participants were inadequately described and only a small number of participants were recruited | Telephone reminders, if received, can have positive impact on attendance and did-not-attend rates. Postal reminders found to be effective. Although limited, literature suggests that impact of ‘standard’ reminders is similar to that of telephone reminders. Suggests that ‘reminders +’ are more effective than ‘standard’ reminders | Impact of implementing initiatives on inequalities in access to services not considered by any studies included in review. Majority of included studies conducted in psychiatric settings outside the UK, raising issues of generalisability |
| Jacobson and Szilagyi, 200949 | To assess overall effectiveness of patient reminder or recall systems, or both, in improving immunisation rates. Compare effectiveness of different types of reminder or recall interventions (e.g. postcard, letter, telephone), or combination of both reminder and recall | Cochrane Review | Reminding people over telephone, sending a letter or postcard, or speaking to them in person increased vaccinations. Providing numerous reminders was more effective than single reminders. Reminding people over telephone more effective than postcard or letter reminders. Reminders over telephone may be expensive compared with alternative approaches. Reminders worked whether from private doctor’s office, medical centre, or public health department clinic. Studies all from developed countries | Reminding people to have vaccinations increased the number of people vaccinated, whether the people were due or overdue for vaccinations. Increases were observed in both children and adults for all types of vaccines, but not among urban adolescents in one study |
| Krishna et al., 200950 | To investigate role of cell phones and text messaging interventions in improving health outcomes and processes of care | Research question supported by inclusion criteria for study design, intervention and outcomes. Authors did not report searches of unpublished data. Only studies published in English/English-language abstracts eligible for inclusion. Publication/language bias could not be ruled out. Authors did not report review process, so not known whether or not steps taken to reduce possible error and bias (such as performing processes in duplicate). Study quality not assessed, so unknown whether or not results of included studies were reliable. Many studies had small sample sizes. Narrative synthesis was appropriate given diversity of included studies. Owing to possibility of bias and error in review process and unknown quality of included studies, authors’ conclusions may not be reliable | Text messaging associated with fewer days to diagnosis. Failure-to-attend rates significantly improved in two studies, but did not differ significantly between intervention/control groups in two other studies. Mobile phone reminder, disease monitoring and management and education can improve health outcomes and care processes | Text messaging associated with improved communication in participants with disabilities |
| Reda and Makhoul, 201051 | To estimate the effects of simple prompting by professional carers to encourage attendance at clinics for those with suspected serious mental illness | Cochrane review | No clear difference between those prompted by telephone 1 or 2 days before appointment and those given standard appointment management system (two RCTs, n = 457, RR missed appointment 0.84, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.1). Text-based prompts as a letter, a few days before the appointment day, may increase clinic attendance vs. no prompt (three RCTs, n = 326, RR missed appointment 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32). One small study (n = 61) compared combined telephone/text-based prompts vs. no prompt; no real difference between groups (RR missed appointment 0.7, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Telephone prompts vs. text-based prompts (one RCT, n = 75), the latter, as an ‘orientation statement’ may be more effective than telephone prompt (RR missed appointment 1.9, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.8). One study (n = 120) compared standard letter prompt with a letter orientation statement. Overall, results tended to favour orientation statement vs. simple letter but not statistically significant (RR missed appointment 1.6, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.9). For prompts regardless of type, results of greater significance suggesting increased attendance (RR missed appointment 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.98) | Indication for serious mental illness it may be important to provide textual reminder plus orientation statement (a short paragraph, taking about 30 seconds to read, explaining the programme of care, the fee system, and providing gentle encouragement).66 Contrasts with general trend in favour of telephone reminders |
| Stubbs et al., 201252 | To compare telephone, mail, text/ SMS, e-mail and open-access scheduling to determine which is best at reducing outpatient non-attendance and providing net financial benefit | Review addressed broad research question to evaluate impact of all methods for reducing outpatient non-attendance. Methods used to identify and select studies for inclusion generally clear, but publication bias cannot be ruled out. No attempts to assess study quality or minimise errors and bias in review process mentioned. Included studies extremely diverse in populations, settings and research methods. Analysis based on simple weighted average for each approach (telephone, text, post or open access). Influence of other relevant factors on non-attendance not explored. Authors acknowledge that only more recent studies (electronic rather than paper reminders), likely to be relevant now. Potential publication bias notwithstanding, authors conclude that most included interventions modestly improved attendance. Appears reliable, but did not investigate factors that might influence effectiveness of these interventions in different populations and settings. Different reminders not compared with each other. Conclusion that telephone reminders were better than text and post reminders may not be reliable. No formal evaluation of cost-effectiveness, so conclusion on relative cost-effectiveness of interventions also may not be reliable | Telephone, mail and text/SMS interventions all improved attendance modestly but at varying costs. Text messaging most cost-effective of the three, but its applicability may be limited. Few data available regarding e-mail reminders, whereas open-access scheduling is area of active research | This review presents no findings or implications for specific subgroups |
