OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a short messaging service (SMS) text messaging and phone reminder to improve attendance rates at a health promotion center. METHODS:A total of 1 859 participants who had scheduled appointments in the health promotion center of our hospital from April 2007 to May 2007 were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into 3 groups: control (no reminder) group, SMS text messaging reminder group and telephone reminder group. Attendance rates and costs of interventions were collected. RESULTS: A total of 1848 participants were eligible for analysis. Attendance rates of control, SMS and telephone groups were 80.5%, 87.5% and 88.3%, respectively. The attendance rates were significantly higher in SMS and telephone groups than that in the control group, with odds ratio 1.698, 95% confidence interval 1.224 to 2.316, P=0.001 in the SMS group, and odds ratio 1.829, 95% confidence interval 1.333 to 2.509, P<0.001 in the telephone group. However, there was no difference between the SMS group and the telephone group (P=0.670). The cost effectiveness analysis showed that the cost per attendance for the SMS group (0.31 Yuan) was significantly lower than that for the telephone group (0.48 Yuan). CONCLUSION:SMS and telephone are effective reminders for improving attendance rate at a health promotion center. SMS reminder may be more cost-effective compared with the telephone reminder.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a short messaging service (SMS) text messaging and phone reminder to improve attendance rates at a health promotion center. METHODS: A total of 1 859 participants who had scheduled appointments in the health promotion center of our hospital from April 2007 to May 2007 were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into 3 groups: control (no reminder) group, SMS text messaging reminder group and telephone reminder group. Attendance rates and costs of interventions were collected. RESULTS: A total of 1848 participants were eligible for analysis. Attendance rates of control, SMS and telephone groups were 80.5%, 87.5% and 88.3%, respectively. The attendance rates were significantly higher in SMS and telephone groups than that in the control group, with odds ratio 1.698, 95% confidence interval 1.224 to 2.316, P=0.001 in the SMS group, and odds ratio 1.829, 95% confidence interval 1.333 to 2.509, P<0.001 in the telephone group. However, there was no difference between the SMS group and the telephone group (P=0.670). The cost effectiveness analysis showed that the cost per attendance for the SMS group (0.31 Yuan) was significantly lower than that for the telephone group (0.48 Yuan). CONCLUSION:SMS and telephone are effective reminders for improving attendance rate at a health promotion center. SMS reminder may be more cost-effective compared with the telephone reminder.
Authors: J A Mayer; E C Lewis; D J Slymen; J Dullum; H Kurata; A Holbrook; J P Elder; S J Williams Journal: Prev Med Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Andrea Beratarrechea; Allison G Lee; Jonathan M Willner; Eiman Jahangir; Agustín Ciapponi; Adolfo Rubinstein Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Cindy X Zheng; Wanda D Hu; Judie Tran; Linda Siam; Giuliana G Berardi; Harjeet Sembhi; Lisa A Hark; L Jay Katz; Michael Waisbourd Journal: J Community Health Date: 2016-04
Authors: Su-May Liew; Seng Fah Tong; Verna Kar Mun Lee; Chirk Jenn Ng; Kwok Chi Leong; Cheong Lieng Teng Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.386