LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gurol-Urganci, I; de Jongh, T; Vodopivec-Jamsek, V; Atun, R; Car, J (2013)
Publisher: Cochrane Collaboration
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: education, psychological phenomena and processes
: This 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.
: To 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.
: Original 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.
: 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.
: 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.
: We 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.
: Low 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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 21,e ittean itrven
    • d s i 3 tu u d 1 s ,n on 23 (3 ito sp
    • in en re 00 )00 uo s it
    • d o l I)C% seonp liehp tsoap rep10 to10 lteahh 5 rr b s 9 o o lu ( m is D I S C U S S I O N Atun 2006
    • and efficiency in healthcare. Vodafone Group Plc., 2006. Atun 2006b
    • Plc., 2006. Bauer 2003
    • nervosa. European Eating Disorders Review 2003;11(3):
    • 279-90. Baumgart 2005
    • 2005;366(9492):1210-22. Bech 2005
    • Policy 2005;74(2):181-91. Bottomley 1994
    • Dermatology 1994;19(5):399-400. Brown 1999
    • radiology, and endodontics 1999;87(4):405-10. Campbell 2000
    • Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine 2000;9(8):891-5. Can 2003
    • 2003;195(4):199-201. Canizares 2002
    • Academy of Dermatology 2002;46(3):457-9. Car 2003
    • Car J, Sheikh A. Telephone consultations. BMJ 2003;326
    • (7396):966-9. Car 2004
    • Car J, Sheikh A. Email consultations in health care: 1-scope
    • and effectiveness. BMJ 2004;329(7463):435-8. Car 2004b
    • Car J, Sheikh A. Email consultations in health care: 2-
    • acceptability and safe application. BMJ 2004;329(7463):
    • 439-42. Carrion 1993
    • schizophrenia. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1993;44
    • (8):764-7. Cashman 2004
    • and Underserved 2004;15(3):474-88. Catz 1999
    • with HIV. AIDS Care 1999;11(3):361-73. [MEDLINE:
    • 159] Chung 2004
    • a regional hospital. Journal of Nursing Management 2004;12
    • (5):362-7. Clarke 1998
    • Nuclear Medicine Communications 1998;19(3):193-7. Collins 2003
    • attenders. Australian Health Review 2003;26(1):52-63. Coodin 2004
    • 2004;49(2):145-8. de Jongh 2012 (in press)
    • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012. [DOI:
    • 10.1002/14651858.CD007459] Deyo 1980
    • Care 1980;18(11):1146-57. Dini 1995
    • Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1995;149(8):
    • 902-5. DoH 2004
    • Bulletin 2004, issue 33. DPP 2003
    • www.dpp.org.uk 2003. Dyer 2003
    • messages. BMJ 2003;326(7402):1281. [MEDLINE: 4001] Ellenbogen 2003
    • greatest in lower socio-economic groups. BMJ 2003;327:
    • 564-e. Fahey 2003
    • 2003;327(7414):564. Fairley 2003
    • 2003;14(12):805-9. Ferrer-Roca 2004
    • diabetes. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2004;10(5):
    • 282-5. Fjeldsoe 2009
    • service. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009;36
    • (2):165-73. Franklin 2003
    • Therapeutics 2003;5(6):991-6. Gatrad 1997
    • Childhood 1997;77(5):423-6. Gatrad 2000
    • non-attendance rates. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2000;
    • 82(1):59-61. George 2003
    • health care. Family Practice 2003;20(2):178-84. Grunebaum 1996
    • 1996;47(8):848-52. Gurol-Urganci 2012
    • results of medical investigations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD007456.pub2] Hamilton 2002
    • Practice 2002;52(477):317-9. Hashim 2001
    • the American Board of Family Medicine 2001;14(3):193-6. Herrick 1994
    • Journal of Dentistry 1994;22(5):307-9. Higgins 2011
    • Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1 [updated
    • March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from
    • www.cochrane-handbook.org, 2011. Hon 2002
    • Experimental Dermatology 2002;27(8):711-3. Hon 2005
    • Treatment 2005;16(2):113-6. Hull 2002
    • Scottish NHS Trust. Health Bulletin (Edinborough) 2002;
    • 60(1):62-9. Husain-Gambles 2004
    • British Journal of General Practice 2004;54(499):108-13. Iben 2000
    • eastern Iowa. Pediatric Dentistry 2000;22(4):325-9. ITU 2010
    • 2010: ICT Facts and Figures. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/
    • ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf 2010. Jacobson Vann 2005
    • of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/
    • 14651858.CD003941.pub2] Kane 1991
    • patients' x-ray department. Radiography Today 1991;57
    • (653):15-9. [MEDLINE: 1] Killaspy 2000
    • 2000;176:160-5. King 1995
    • Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1995;88(2):88-90. Krishna 2009
    • A systematic review. Telemedicine and e-Health 2009;15(3):
    • 231-40. [PUBMED: 19382860] Kwon 2004
    • and Clinical Practice 2004;66 Suppl 1:S133-7. Lasser 2005
    • Underserved 2005;16(3):475-86. Livianos-Aldana 1999
    • International Journal of Social Psychiatry 1999;45(3):
    • 198-206. Lloyd 1993
    • Family Practice 1993;10(2):111-7. Majeroni 1996
    • Family Medicine 1996;5(9):507-11. Mantyjarvi 1994
    • 1994;72(3):284-9. Marquez Contreras 2004
    • to patients with hypertension as short text messages and reminders sent to their mobile phone (HTA-Alert)]. Atencion Primaria 2004;34(8):399-405. Martin 2005
    • and solutions. Family Practice 2005;22(6):638-43. Mirotznik 1998
    • of Community Health 1998;23(3):195-210. Mohamed 2002
    • Journal 2002;23(4):388-92. Moore 2001
    • clinic. Family Medicine 2001;33(7):522-7. Murdock 2002
    • Society of Medicine 2002;95(6):284-6. Neal 2001
    • Journal of General Practice 2001;51(471):830-2. Neal 2005
    • Family Practice 2005;6:47. Newell 2001
    • vaginalis. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2001;77(3):225. Norwell 2003
    • 2003;326(7399):1148. Obermayer 2004
    • American College Health 2004;53(2):71-8. [MEDLINE:
    • 4688] Ostojic 2005
    • Journal and e-Health 2005;11(1):28-35. Pal 1998
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    42
    42%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article