Car Josip, Gurol-Urganci Ipek, de Jongh Thyra, Vodopivec-Jamsek Vlasta, Atun Rifat
Global eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London,UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11(7):CD007458. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007458.pub2.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.
失约是医疗服务效率低下的主要原因,给卫生系统带来巨大的经济成本,导致诊断和适当治疗的延迟。患者遗忘是失约的主要原因之一,提醒可能有助于缓解这一问题。向患者传达预约提醒的方式包括面对面交流、邮寄信息、拨打固定电话或手机以及手机短信。诸如短消息服务(SMS)和多媒体消息服务(MMS)等手机短信应用程序可为医疗预约提醒提供一种重要且廉价的传递媒介。
评估手机短信提醒对医疗预约就诊率的影响。次要目的包括评估患者和医疗服务提供者对该干预措施的评价、成本以及与该干预措施相关的可能风险和危害。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL,《Cochrane图书馆》2009年第2期)、MEDLINE(OvidSP)(1993年1月至2009年6月)、EMBASE(OvidSP)(1993年1月至2009年6月)、PsycINFO(OvidSP)(1993年1月至2009年6月)、CINAHL(EbscoHOST)(1993年1月至2009年6月)、LILACS(1993年1月至2009年6月)以及非洲卫生文献选集(1993年1月至2009年6月)。我们还查阅了灰色文献(包括试验注册库)和文章的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验(QRCT)、干预前后对照(CBA)研究或具有至少三个干预前后时间点的中断时间序列(ITS)研究。我们纳入了评估手机短信作为医疗预约提醒的研究。我们仅纳入了能够独立于其他技术或干预措施评估手机短信效果的研究。
两位综述作者根据纳入标准独立评估所有研究,任何分歧由第三位综述作者解决。研究设计特征、目标人群特征、干预措施和对照以及结果数据由两位综述作者提取并由第三位作者确认。感兴趣的主要结局是医疗预约就诊率。我们还考虑了干预措施带来的健康结局、患者和提供者对干预措施的评价、安全性认知、成本以及潜在危害或不良反应。由于纳入研究的干预特征和结局测量相似,我们进行了荟萃分析以估计总体效应大小。
我们纳入了四项随机对照试验,涉及3547名参与者。三项具有中等质量证据的研究表明,与无提醒相比,手机短信提醒提高了医疗预约就诊率(风险比(RR)1.10(95%置信区间(CI)1.03至1.17))。一项低质量研究报告称,与邮寄提醒相比,手机短信提醒与邮寄提醒相结合提高了医疗预约就诊率(RR 1.10(95%CI 1.02至1.19))。然而,两项具有中等质量证据的研究表明,手机短信提醒和电话提醒对医疗就诊率的影响相似(RR 0.99(95%CI 0.95至1.03))。与电话提醒相比,手机短信提醒的每次就诊成本更低。纳入的研究均未报告与干预措施的危害或不良反应相关的结局,也未报告与干预措施相关的健康结局或用户安全性认知。
有中等质量证据表明手机短信提醒比无提醒更有效,低质量证据表明短信提醒与邮寄提醒相结合比单独的邮寄提醒更有效。此外,根据我们发现的中等质量证据,手机短信提醒与电话提醒效果相同。总体而言,关于手机短信提醒对预约就诊影响的证据有限,需要进一步开展高质量研究以得出更可靠的结论。