Cited by 396Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

Open access
Jacobson Vann, Julie C, Jacobson, Robert M, Coyne-Beasley, Tamera, Asafu-Adjei, Josephine K, Szilagyi, Peter G·2018·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patient reminder and recall systems, in prim

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003941.pub3

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other systematic reviews showed influenza vaccine immunogenicity with lower hospitalization and mortality risk among persons with DM, especially those over 65, compared with healthy individuals.

    “Other systematic reviews have demonstrated effective immunogenicity of influenza vaccine with decreased risk for hospitalization and mortality among persons with DM (especially those aged >65 years) compared with healthy individuals.”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1831]

    The Adult influenza immunizations section reports whether reminder and recall interventions increased vaccination uptake, not vaccine immunogenicity or health outcomes. The Characteristics of included studies section lists diabetes and age 65 or older as high-risk criteria, but does not compare people with diabetes to healthy individuals or report hospitalization or mortality risk. Searches for immunogenicity, hospitalization, and mortality found no passage addressing the attributed finding; the copy is truncated. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Walter 2008 {published data only} Walter EB, Hellkamp AS, Goldberg KC, Montgomery D, Patterson B, Dolor RJ. Improving influenza vaccine coverage among asthmatics: a practice-based research network study. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management 2008;15(5):227-34.
  2. Waterman 1996 {published data only} Waterman S, Hill L, Robyn B, Yeager K, Maes E, Stevenson J, et al. A model immunization demonstration for preschoolers in an inner-city barrio, San Diego, California, 1992-1994. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1996;12(Suppl 1):8-13.
  3. Weaver 2003 {published data only} Weaver FM, Goldstein B, Evans CT, Legro MW, LaVela S, Smith B, et al. Influenza vaccination among veterans with spinal cord injury: Part 2. Increasing vaccination rates. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2002;26(3):210-8.
  4. Weaver 2007 {published data only} Weaver FM, Smith B, LaVela S, Wallace C, Evans CT, Hammond M, et al. Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 2007;30(1):10-9.
  5. Wilcox 2001 {published data only} Wilcox SA, Koepke CP, Levenson R, Thalheimer JC. Registry- driven, community-based immunization outreach: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health 2001;91(9):1507-11.
  6. Wojciechowski B, Darden PM, Ector WL. Effectiveness of postcard prompts for increasing immunizations in children. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1993;147:437.
  7. Wright 2012 {published data only} Wright A, Poon EG, Wald J, Feblowitz J, Pang JE, Schnipper JL, et al. Randomized controlled trial of health maintenance reminders provided directly to patients through an electronic PHR. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2012;27(1):85-92.
  8. Yanagihara 2005 {published data only} Yanagihara DM, Taira DA, Davis J, Gronley KA, Marciel C, Lee E, et al. A health plan intervention to improve pneumococcal vaccination in the elderly. Managed Care Interface 2005;18(9):25-30.
  9. Yokley 1984 {published data only} Yokley JM, Glenwick DS. Increasing the immunization of preschool children: an evaluation of applied community interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1984;17(3):313-25.
  10. Yudin MH, Mistry N, De Souza LR, Besel K, Patel V, Blanco Mejia S, et al. Text messages for influenza vaccination among pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. Vaccine 2017;35(5):842-8.
  11. Zimmerman 2003 {published data only} Zimmerman RK, Nowalk MP, Raymund M, Tabbarah M, Hall DG, Wahrenberger JT, et al. Tailored interventions to increase influenza vaccination in neighborhood health centers serving the disadvantaged. American Journal of Public Health 2003;93(10):1699-705.
  12. Fairbrother G, Friedman S, DuMont KA, Loback KS. Markers for primary care: missed opportunities to immunize and screen for lead and tuberculosis by private physicians serving large numbers of inner-city Medicaid-eligible children. Pediatrics 1996;97:785-90.
  13. Gottlieb MS, Carr JK, Clarkson JR. Drinking water and cancer in Louisiana: a retrospective mortality study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1982;116:652-67.
  14. Groom H. Immunization information systems to increase vaccination rates: a community guide systematic review. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 2014;00:1-22.
  15. Groom H, Hopkins DP, Pabst LJ, Murphy Morgan J, Patel M, Colonge N, et al. Immunization information systems to increase vaccination rates: a community guide systematic review. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 2015;21(3):227-48.
  16. Hales CM, Harpaz R, Ortega-Sanchez I, Bialek SR. Update on recommendations for use of herpes zoster vaccine. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2014;63(33):729-31.
  17. Harvey H, Reissland N, Mason J. Parental reminder, recall and educational interventions to improve early childhood immunisation uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 2015;33(25):2862-80.
  18. Heidenreich PA, McDonald KM, Hastie T, Fadel B, Hagan V, Lee BK, et al. Meta-analysis of trials comparing B-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina. JAMA 1999;281:1927-36.
  19. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane- handbook.org.
  20. Hill HA, Elam-Evans LD, Yankey D, Singleton JA, Kolasa M. National, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among children aged 19-35 months--United States, 2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2015;64(3):889-96.
  21. Hill HA, Elam-Evans LD, Yankey D, Singleton JA, Dietz V. Vaccination coverage among children aged 19-35 months -- United States, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016;65(39):21-7.
  22. Jacobson RM, Agunwamba AA, St Sauver JL, Finney Rutten LJ. The most effective and promising population health strategies to advance human papillomavirus vaccination. Expert Review of Vaccines 2016;15(2):257-69.
  23. Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C, Noone AM, Markowitz LE, Kohler B, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2013;105:175-201.
  24. Kempe 2012c Kempe A, Wortley P, O'Leary S, Crane LA, Daley MF, Stokley S, et al. Pediatricians' attitudes about collaborations with other community vaccinators in the delivery of seasonal influenza vaccine. Academic Pediatrics 2012;12(1):26-35.
  25. Lu PJ, Santibanez TA, Williams WW, Zhang J, Ding H, Bryan L, O'Halloran A, et al. Surveillance of influenza vaccination coverage--United States, 2007-08 through 2011-12 influenza seasons. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Surveillance Summaries 2013;62(4):1-28.
  26. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, Chesson HW, Curtis CR, Gee J, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Human papillomavirus vaccination: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 2014;63:1-30. (randomis* or randomiz* or randomly).ti,ab. 23 groups.ab. 24 (trial or multicentre or multicenter or multi centre or multi center).ti. 25 (intervention? or effect? or impact? or controlled or control group? or (be- fore adj5 after) or (pre adj5 post) or ((pretest or pre test) and (posttest or post test)) or quasiexperiment* or quasi experiment* or pseudo experiment* or pseudoexperiment* or evaluat- sur*).ti,ab. 26 or/15-25 27 (systematic review or literature review).ti.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobson Vann, J. C., Jacobson, R. M., Coyne-Beasley, T., Asafu-Adjei, J. K., & Szilagyi, P. G.
Affiliations
  • The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; School of Nursing; Carrington Hall Chapel Hill North Carolina USA 27599-7460
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01-18
Volume
2018
Issue
1
Pages
CD003941-CD003941
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2791639660
Cited by
396
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
vaccination coverage, vaccination, primary care, telephone reminders, text messaging, systemic intervention, immunization registry, electronic health records, vaccine-preventable diseases, children and adolescents, adults, intervention comparison, cost-effectiveness, vaccine hesitancy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Humans, Immunization, Telephone, Correspondence as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Reminder Systems, Immunization Programs, Text Messaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review