OBJECTIVE: To assess cost and cost-effectiveness of immunization reminder/recall systems in the private sector. METHODS: A manual postcard system (mail) was compared with a computer-based telephone system (autodialer) and control. Costs included time costs and the cost of equipment and supplies. The cost per child and the incremental cost of the intervention relative to control were computed. Cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for return visits and for immunizations delivered. RESULTS: The average cost per child was $2.28 for the mail group and $1.47 for the autodialer group. The incremental visit cost relative to the control was higher for the mail group ($9.52) than for the autodialer group ($3.48). The autodialer was more cost-effective in delivering immunizations: $4. 06 per extra immunization (autodialer) versus $12.82 (mail). CONCLUSIONS: Excluding start-up costs, the autodialer system was most cost-effective. Including autodialer equipment costs, the autodialer system is more cost-effective only for larger practices.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess cost and cost-effectiveness of immunization reminder/recall systems in the private sector. METHODS: A manual postcard system (mail) was compared with a computer-based telephone system (autodialer) and control. Costs included time costs and the cost of equipment and supplies. The cost per child and the incremental cost of the intervention relative to control were computed. Cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for return visits and for immunizations delivered. RESULTS: The average cost per child was $2.28 for the mail group and $1.47 for the autodialer group. The incremental visit cost relative to the control was higher for the mail group ($9.52) than for the autodialer group ($3.48). The autodialer was more cost-effective in delivering immunizations: $4. 06 per extra immunization (autodialer) versus $12.82 (mail). CONCLUSIONS: Excluding start-up costs, the autodialer system was most cost-effective. Including autodialer equipment costs, the autodialer system is more cost-effective only for larger practices.
Authors: Stephanie Mayne; Dean Karavite; Robert W Grundmeier; Russell Localio; Kristen Feemster; Elena DeBartolo; Cayce C Hughes; Alexander G Fiks Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2012-11-03
Authors: Peter G Szilagyi; Christina Albertin; Sharon G Humiston; Cynthia M Rand; Stanley Schaffer; Howard Brill; Joseph Stankaitis; Byung-Kwang Yoo; Aaron Blumkin; Shannon Stokley Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; David P Hopkins; Jennifer Murphy Morgan; Adesola A Pitan; John M Clymer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Carolyn Rose Ahlers-Schmidt; Amy K Chesser; Angelia M Paschal; Traci A Hart; Katherine S Williams; Beryl Yaghmai; Sapna Shah-Haque Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jennifer A Pereira; Susan Quach; Christine L Heidebrecht; Sherman D Quan; Faron Kolbe; Michael Finkelstein; Jeffrey C Kwong Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Julie C Jacobson Vann; Robert M Jacobson; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Josephine K Asafu-Adjei; Peter G Szilagyi Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-18