Article

SMS text message healthcare appointment reminders in England.

Department of Primary Care and Social Medicine, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
The Journal of ambulatory care management 01/2008; 31(3):216-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.JAC.0000324666.98777.6d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Missed appointments place a costly and disruptive strain on National Health Service resources in England. One major source of missed appointments appears to be insufficient communication between patients and providers. SMS text messaging shows promise as a simple, cost-effective means of bridging this communications gap. SMS provides an instant and asynchronous means of communication that protects patient privacy. The potential for this technology is balanced, however, by the lack of high-quality evidence to support its use. There is an urgent need for robust evaluation of critical quality, safety, cost implications, and acceptability before the large-scale rollout of SMS-based systems.

4 Followers
 · 
365 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the extent of primary care follow-up and mental health outcomes among women referred for ultrasound assessment of pain and/or bleeding in early pregnancy, including those whose pregnancy is found to be viable on ultrasound assessment. Questionnaire study with prospective follow-up. Urgent gynaecology clinic in secondary care, England. 57 women participated in the study. Entry criteria: referral to the urgent gynaecology clinic with pain and/or bleeding in early pregnancy; gestation less than 16 weeks (the clinic's own 'cut-off'); no previous attendance at the clinic during the current pregnancy. Exclusion criteria: inability to understand English or to provide informed consent. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of primary care follow-up among women referred to the urgent gynaecology clinic; incidence of women with measured mental health scores suggesting significant symptoms of distress. Fewer than 1 in 10 women referred for ultrasound assessment of pain and/or bleeding in early pregnancy had follow-up arrangements made with their general practitioner (GP). Most women who had GP follow-up found it helpful and a significant minority of women who did not have GP follow-up felt that it would have been helpful. Following ultrasound assessment, more than one-third of women had significant symptoms of distress. Symptoms of distress, particularly anxiety, were present among those women found to have viable pregnancies, as well as among those with non-viable pregnancies. GPs are advised to consider offering follow-up to all women referred for ultrasound assessment of pain and/or bleeding in early pregnancy. Researchers in this area are advised to consider the experiences of women with pain and/or bleeding in early pregnancy whose pregnancies are ultimately found to be viable on ultrasound scan.
    BMJ Open 04/2013; 3(4). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002595 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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, and reminders may help alleviate this problem. 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 assess the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Secondary objectives include assessment of patients' and healthcare providers' evaluation of the intervention; costs; and possible risks and harms associated with the intervention. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to June 2009), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1993 to June 2009), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (January 1993 to June 2009), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (January 1993 to June 2009), LILACS (January 1993 to June 2009) and African Health Anthology (January 1993 to June 2009). We also reviewed grey literature (including trial registers) and reference lists of articles. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (QRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies with at least three time points before and after the intervention. We included studies 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. Primary outcomes of interest were rate of attendance at healthcare appointments. We also considered health outcomes as a result of the intervention, patients' and providers' evaluation of the intervention, perceptions of safety, costs, and potential harms or adverse effects. 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 four randomised controlled trials involving 3547 participants. Three studies with moderate quality evidence showed that mobile text message reminders improved the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders (risk ratio (RR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.17)). One low quality study reported that mobile text message reminders with postal reminders, compared to postal reminders, improved rate of attendance at healthcare appointments (RR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19)). However, two studies with moderate quality of evidence showed that mobile phone text message reminders and phone call reminders had a similar impact on healthcare attendance (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.03). The costs per attendance of mobile phone text message reminders were shown to be lower compared to phone call reminders. None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention, nor health outcomes or user perception of safety related to the intervention. There is moderate quality evidence that mobile phone text message reminders are more effective than no reminders, and low quality evidence that text message reminders with postal reminders are more effective than postal reminders alone. Further, according to the moderate quality evidence we found, mobile phone text message reminders are as effective as phone call reminders. Overall, there is limited evidence on the effects of mobile phone text message reminders for appointment attendance, and further high-quality research is required to draw more robust conclusions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 7(7):CD007458. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007458.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the effect of electronic reminders (ERs) on response rate and time to response for the return of postal questionnaires. This open randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the University of York. Participants who were taking part in an established RCT and who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile telephone number were eligible to take part in the study. The intervention group received ERs on the day they were expected to receive postal questionnaires. One hundred forty-eight participants (19 male and 129 female) aged 47±11 (range, 19-65) years were studied. About 89.2% of participants returned postal questionnaires. There was no difference in questionnaire response rates in control (64 of 74 [86.5%]) vs. intervention (68 of 74 [91.9%]), groups (relative risk=1.063, 95% confidence interval: 0.949-1.189). Median questionnaire time to response was 4 days less in the intervention group (10.0±0.2; range, 10-14 days) compared with the control group (14.0±1.4; range, 10-23 days) (χ(2)(1df)=5.27, P=0.022). ERs are useful tools for reducing participant time to response for postal questionnaires. We found little evidence for an effect of ERs on response rate for postal questionnaires.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 02/2011; 64(2):208-12. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.020 · 5.48 Impact Factor