Chen Zhou-Wen, Fang Li-Zheng, Chen Li-Ying, Dai Hong-Lei
Department of General Practice, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310016, China.
J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2008 Jan;9(1):34-8. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B071464.
To compare the efficacy of a short messaging service (SMS) text messaging and phone reminder to improve attendance rates at a health promotion center.
A total of 1 859 participants who had scheduled appointments in the health promotion center of our hospital from April 2007 to May 2007 were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into 3 groups: control (no reminder) group, SMS text messaging reminder group and telephone reminder group. Attendance rates and costs of interventions were collected.
A total of 1848 participants were eligible for analysis. Attendance rates of control, SMS and telephone groups were 80.5%, 87.5% and 88.3%, respectively. The attendance rates were significantly higher in SMS and telephone groups than that in the control group, with odds ratio 1.698, 95% confidence interval 1.224 to 2.316, P=0.001 in the SMS group, and odds ratio 1.829, 95% confidence interval 1.333 to 2.509, P<0.001 in the telephone group. However, there was no difference between the SMS group and the telephone group (P=0.670). The cost effectiveness analysis showed that the cost per attendance for the SMS group (0.31 Yuan) was significantly lower than that for the telephone group (0.48 Yuan).
SMS and telephone are effective reminders for improving attendance rate at a health promotion center. SMS reminder may be more cost-effective compared with the telephone reminder.
比较短信服务(SMS)文本信息和电话提醒对提高健康促进中心就诊率的效果。
选取2007年4月至2007年5月在我院健康促进中心预约就诊的1859名参与者纳入研究,并随机分为3组:对照组(无提醒)、短信文本信息提醒组和电话提醒组。收集就诊率和干预成本。
共有1848名参与者符合分析条件。对照组、短信组和电话组的就诊率分别为80.5%、87.5%和88.3%。短信组和电话组的就诊率显著高于对照组,短信组的比值比为1.698,95%置信区间为1.224至2.316,P = 0.001;电话组的比值比为1.829,95%置信区间为1.333至2.509,P < 0.001。然而,短信组和电话组之间无差异(P = 0.670)。成本效益分析表明,短信组每次就诊的成本(0.31元)显著低于电话组(0.48元)。
短信和电话是提高健康促进中心就诊率的有效提醒方式。与电话提醒相比,短信提醒可能更具成本效益。