Liu Qin, Abba Katharine, Alejandria Marissa M, Sinclair David, Balanag Vincent M, Lansang Mary Ann D
China Effective Health Care Network, School of Public Health & Management, Chongqing Medical University, No.1 YixueYuan Road, Chongqing, China, 400016.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 18;2014(11):CD006594. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006594.pub3.
People with active tuberculosis (TB) require six months of treatment. Some people find it difficult to complete treatment, and there are several approaches to help ensure completion. One such system relies on reminders, where the health system prompts patients to attend for appointments on time, or re-engages people who have missed or defaulted on a scheduled appointment.
To assess the effects of reminder systems on improving attendance at TB diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment clinic appointments, and their effects on TB treatment outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, mRCT, and the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis without language restriction up to 29 August 2014. We also checked reference lists and contacted researchers working in the field.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies comparing reminder systems with no reminders or an alternative reminder system for people with scheduled appointments for TB diagnosis, prophylaxis, or treatment.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. We compared the effects of interventions by using risk ratios (RR) and presented RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Also we assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Nine trials, including 4654 participants, met our inclusion criteria. Five trials evaluated appointment reminders for people on treatment for active TB, two for people on prophylaxis for latent TB, and four for people undergoing TB screening using skin tests. We classified the interventions into 'pre-appointment' reminders (telephone calls or letters prior to a scheduled appointment) or 'default' reminders (telephone calls, letters, or home visits to people who had missed an appointment).For people being treated for active TB, clinic attendance and TB treatment completion were higher in people receiving pre-appointment reminder phone-calls (clinic attendance: 66% versus 50%; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.59, one trial (USA), 615 participants, low quality evidence; TB treatment completion: 100% versus 88%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27, one trial (Thailand), 92 participants, low quality evidence). Clinic attendance and TB treatment completion were also higher with default reminders (letters or home visits) (clinic attendance: 52% versus 10%; RR 5.04, 95% CI 1.61 to 15.78, one trial (India), 52 participants, low quality evidence; treatment completion: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24, two trials (Iraq and India), 680 participants, moderate quality evidence).For people on TB prophylaxis, clinic attendance was higher with a policy of pre-appointment phone-calls (63% versus 48%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59, one trial (USA), 536 participants); and attendance at the final clinic was higher with regular three-monthly phone-calls or nurse visits (93% versus 65%, one trial (Spain), 318 participants).For people undergoing screening for TB, three trials of pre-appointment phone-calls found little or no effect on the proportion of people returning to clinic for the result of their skin test (three trials, 1189 participants, low quality evidence), and two trials found little or no effect with take home reminder cards (two trials, 711 participants). All four trials were conducted among healthy volunteers in the USA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Policies of sending reminders to people pre-appointment, and contacting people who miss appointments, seem sensible additions to any TB programme, and the limited evidence available suggests they have small but potentially important benefits. Future studies of modern technologies such as short message service (SMS) reminders would be useful, particularly in low-resource settings.
活动性肺结核患者需要接受为期六个月的治疗。一些患者觉得难以完成治疗,有多种方法可帮助确保治疗的完成。其中一种系统依靠提醒,即卫生系统促使患者按时赴约,或重新联系错过或未按计划赴约的患者。
评估提醒系统对提高肺结核诊断、预防和治疗门诊预约的就诊率的效果,及其对肺结核治疗结果的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane传染病专业组专门注册库、Cochrane有效实践和护理组织专业组专门注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库、科学引文索引扩展版、社会科学引文索引、纳入了未设语言限制直至2014年8月29日的试验注册库和《印度结核病杂志》。我们还查阅了参考文献列表并联系了该领域的研究人员。
随机对照试验(RCT),包括整群随机对照试验和半随机对照试验,以及前后对照研究,比较提醒系统与无提醒或针对肺结核诊断、预防或治疗预约患者的替代提醒系统。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估纳入试验的偏倚风险。我们使用风险比(RR)比较干预措施的效果,并给出RR及95%置信区间(CI)。我们还使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。
九项试验,包括4654名参与者,符合我们的纳入标准。五项试验评估了对活动性肺结核治疗患者的预约提醒,两项评估了对潜伏性肺结核预防患者的提醒,四项评估了对接受结核菌素皮肤试验筛查患者的提醒。我们将干预措施分为“预约前”提醒(预约前的电话或信件)或“违约”提醒(给错过预约的患者打电话、写信或家访)。对于活动性肺结核治疗患者,接受预约前提醒电话的患者门诊就诊率和肺结核治疗完成率更高(门诊就诊率:66%对50%;RR 1.32,95%CI 1.10至1.59,一项试验(美国),615名参与者,低质量证据;肺结核治疗完成率:100%对88%;RR 1.14,95%CI 1.02至1.27,一项试验(泰国),92名参与者,低质量证据)。“违约”提醒(信件或家访)也使门诊就诊率和肺结核治疗完成率更高(门诊就诊率:52%对10%;RR 5.04,95%CI1.61至15.78,一项试验(印度),52名参与者,低质量证据;治疗完成率:RR 1.17,95%CI 1.11至1.24,两项试验(伊拉克和印度),680名参与者,中等质量证据)。对于肺结核预防患者,预约前电话政策使门诊就诊率更高(63%对48%;RR 1.30,95%CI 1.07至1.59,一项试验(美国),536名参与者);定期每三个月电话或护士家访使最终门诊就诊率更高(93%对65%,一项试验(西班牙),318名参与者)。对于接受结核筛查的患者,三项预约前电话试验发现对返回诊所获取皮肤试验结果的患者比例几乎没有或没有影响(三项试验,1189名参与者,低质量证据),两项试验发现带回家提醒卡几乎没有或没有影响(两项试验,711名参与者)。所有四项试验均在美国的健康志愿者中进行。
向患者预约前发送提醒以及联系错过预约患者的政策,似乎是任何肺结核项目合理的补充措施,现有有限证据表明它们有虽小但可能重要的益处。未来对现代技术如短信提醒的研究将很有用,尤其是在资源匮乏地区。