Telephone reminders are effective in recruiting nonresponding patients to randomized controlled trials. Use of reminders for preventive procedures in family medicine. Can just-in-time, evidence-based "reminders" improve pain management among home health care nurses and their patients? Telephone reminders are a cost effective way to improve responses in postal health surveys. Patient-specific reminder letters and pediatric well-child-care show rates. A randomized trial of the impact of telephone and recorded delivery reminders on the response rate to research questionnaires. Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. Effect of telephone reminder/recall on adolescent immunization and preventive visits: results from a randomized clinical trial. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer.
Studies investigating means of recruiting participants to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are sparse. We investigated the effects of telephone reminders as a recruitment strategy.
                Sick-listed employees received a written invitation to participate in a study comparing standard treatments with a solution-focused follow-up and were randomly allocated to an intervention or control group (n=703). Those who did not respond within 2 weeks received either 'no reminder' (n=242) or 'attempted telephone reminder' (n=256). Outcome was enrollment to the RCT.
                An intention to recruit analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups (P=.229). An intention to phone analysis among nonresponders revealed significant differences between 'no reminder' (recruited 4.5%) and 'attempted telephone reminder' (recruited 12.1%) (P=.003, odds ratio 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-5.90). An analysis of numbers needed to phone showed that to recruit one more person in this group of nonresponders, we needed to phone 13 persons (95% CI=8-33).
                Systematic use of telephone calls can increase the recruitment rate among nonresponders in RCTs. To compare the effectiveness of three computerized reminder systems in the delivery of five preventive procedures in family practice.
                Prospective, randomized, controlled study.
                Ottawa Civic Hospital Family Medicine Centre.
                Of 8502 patients 15 years of age or more who were not in a hospital or institution 5883 were randomly assigned, by family, to a control group, a physician reminder group (passive) or a telephone or letter reminder group (active). The remaining 2619 patients were not included in the randomized portion of the study but were monitored.
                During 1 year the patients in the active reminder groups received a telephone call or letter reminding them of any overdue preventive procedures; for those in the passive reminder group the physician was reminded at an office visit to provide any overdue service.
                Rates of completion of the preventive procedures required.
                All three reminder systems significantly improved the delivery of preventive services (p less than 0.001). The procedure completion rates were 42.0% in the letter reminder group, 42.0% in the telephone reminder group, 33.7% in the physician reminder group and 14.1% in the randomized control group. The use of a letter was more cost-effective than the telephone system, but the physician reminder system was the most cost-effective.
                Computerized reminder systems do improve the delivery of preventive services in family practice. The purpose of this randomized, controlled, home care intervention was to test the effectiveness of two nurse-targeted, e-mail-based interventions to increase home care nurses' adherence to pain assessment and management guidelines, and to improve patient outcomes. Nurses from a large urban non-profit home care organization were assigned to usual care or one of two interventions upon identification of an eligible cancer patient with pain. The basic intervention consisted of a patient-specific, one-time e-mail reminder highlighting six pain-specific clinical recommendations. The augmented intervention supplemented the initial e-mail reminder with provider prompts, patient education material, and clinical nurse specialist outreach. Over 300 nurses were randomized and outcomes of 673 of their patients were reviewed. Data collection involved clinical record abstraction of nurse care practices and patient interviews completed approximately 45 days after start of care. The intervention had limited effect on nurse-documented care practices but patient outcomes were positively influenced. Patients in the augmented group improved significantly over the control group in ratings of pain intensity at its worst, whereas patients in the basic group had better ratings of pain intensity on average. Other outcomes measures were also positively influenced but did not reach statistical significance. Our findings suggest that although reminders have some role in improving cancer pain management, a more intensive approach is needed for a generalized nursing workforce with limited recent exposure to state-of-the-art pain management practices. To assess the effectiveness of a telephone reminder in increasing responses to postal surveys and to calculate the differential costs per completed questionnaire.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Australian university and rehabilitation medicine practice.
                The trial was conducted in 1999 among the 143 non-respondents to a questionnaire about work related neck and upper body disorders. The questionnaire was sent to two Australian female samples: 200 office workers (Sample A) and 92 former rehabilitation medicine patients (Sample B). A reminder letter, another copy of the questionnaire and a final letter were sent at two week intervals. Half of the non-respondents within each sample were randomly selected to receive a telephone reminder just after the second mailout of the questionnaire. All direct costs were calculated.
                Responses were significantly higher among those who received the telephone reminder intervention (relative risk 2.54, 95% confidence intervals 1.43 to 4.52). Analysed by intention to phone, 47% of non-respondents in Sample A and 38% in Sample B returned a complete questionnaire after the intervention, compared with 21% and 10%, respectively, in the control groups. For the 112 women (combined samples) who returned completed questionnaires before randomisation, the average cost per respondent was AUD14. There was a higher total cost for the intervention groups (AUD851 versus AUD386 for controls), but the significantly higher number of additional completed responses (31 versus 12) resulted in a 15% lower marginal cost per completed questionnaire in those groups.
                Telephone reminders are cost effective in improving responses to postal surveys. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient-specific letters, which describe the content of an upcoming well-child appointment, improve the show rate of well-child appointments better than postcard reminders. In this prospective clinical trial conducted at a pediatric continuity clinic in a teaching hospital, 288 newborns were randomized to a letter, postcard, or control group. For every well-child appointment, families were sent either a letter pertaining to the particular well-child appointment or a postcard; the control group received no reminders. There were no differences in demographics among the groups. The show rates between the letter and postcard groups were not different, but were significantly higher than the show rate for the control group (75.0%, 73.7%, and 67.5%, respectively; P < .05). A cost comparison between the use of postcards versus not using postcards revealed a benefit in the former. We concluded postcard reminders are effective in improving show rates for well-child-care visits, and that patient-specific letters have no additional benefit above that of postcard reminders. A range of factors have been shown to affect the response rate to mailed questionnaires, but particular strategies to improve patients' response in trials conducted in general practice require further study.
                Non-responders in a larger trial were randomized to receive a telephone or recorded delivery reminder on the third contact. The cost of administration of each method was estimated.
                Significantly more patients returned completed questionnaires when sent questionnaires by recorded delivery, although the cost per patient contacted was nearly three times more than for contact by telephone.
                Our study indicates that sending reminders by recorded delivery, although more expensive, is more effective than telephone reminders for recruiting patients to a study in general practice using research questionnaires. Randomized trials were performed in Denmark and The Netherlands to determine the effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. In both countries, general practitioners handed out questionnaires to 200 adult patients who came to visit them. An intervention group of 100 patients received reminders at 3 weeks after the visit, whereas a control group of the remaining 100 patients did not receive reminders. The response rate was significantly higher in the intervention groups than in the control group in The Netherlands (86% versus 55%, respectively) but not in Denmark (87% versus 81%, respectively). Mailed reminders can improve the response rate in surveys related to a general practice, but they are not effective in all situations. To measure the effect of telephone-based reminder/recall on immunization and well-child care (WCC) visit rates among adolescents in urban practices.
                Randomized clinical trial of telephone-based reminder/recall over 18 months.
                Four urban primary care practices.
                Adolescents aged 11 to 14 years.Intervention Adolescents within practices were randomized to study (n = 1496) or control groups (n = 1510). The study group was sent audiotaped telephone reminders about a scheduled or needed immunization or WCC visit. Households were called weekly if there was no response; telephone numbers were updated weekly. Controls received standard care.
                Baseline demographics and immunization and WCC visit rates were similar for study and control groups. The intervention was largely ineffective in improving immunization or WCC visit rates. Although at the end of the study, the study group had slightly higher hepatitis B coverage (3 vaccinations) (62% vs 57.8%; P = .02), WCC visits were the same (53% and 54%), and impact on other vaccinations was minimal. The effect of reminder/recall was equivalent across demographic subgroups (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, insurance). The major factor limiting intervention effectiveness was inaccurate telephone numbers. Seventy-one percent of study subjects with single telephone numbers throughout the study had a WCC visit vs 25% of study subjects with multiple/changed telephone numbers and 54% of controls (P<.001).
                An intensive telephone reminder and recall system was only minimally successful in improving immunization and WCC visit rates among urban adolescents. Lack of success was largely owing to changed or inaccurate telephone numbers. Although cervical cancer is one of the potentially most preventable malignancies, it is still fairly common. In settings with established screening programs, increased compliance is important for future reduction in cervical cancer incidence, but it is presently unclear how this can be effectively achieved.
                We conducted a randomized controlled trial including all 12,240 women invited to organized screening in Sweden. To increase compliance, three successive interventions were tested: (a) modified invitation versus the standard invitation letter, (b) reminder letter to nonattenders after the first intervention versus no reminder letter, and (c) phone reminder to nonattenders after the reminder letter versus no phone reminder. We analyzed the proportion of women attending screening after each intervention and the cumulative proportion after the interventions as well as the cumulative proportions of cytologic abnormalities.
                The modified invitation did not increase attendance compared with the standard invitation letter [difference 1.3% 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.3 to 2.9]. In contrast, a reminder letter increased the proportion of women attending with 9.2% (95% CI 7.9-10.5) compared with women who did not receive a reminder letter, and a phone reminder increased the proportion of women attending with 31.4% (95% CI 26.9-35.9). Combinations of modified invitation, written reminder, and phone reminder almost doubled attendance within 12 months, and the number of detected cytologic abnormalities was more than tripled.
                Simple reminders by mail and phone can drastically increase women's participation in Papanicolaou smear screening and increase the number of detected precursor lesions and thereby save lives.
Personalized postcards or phone calls are effective, and home visits, and facilitators, may be effective. Reminders to physicians are not. There is insufficient good evidence for other interventions.