Patient views on reminder letters for influenza vaccinations in an older primary care patient population: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspectives of older adults on the acceptability of reminder letters for influenza vaccinations. METHODS: We randomly selected 23 family physicians from each Family Health and Primary Care network participating in a demonstration project designed to increase the delivery of preventive services in Ontario. From the roster of each physician, we surveyed 35 randomly selected patients over 65 years of age who recently received a reminder letter regarding influenza vaccinations from their physician. The questionnaires sought patient perspectives on the acceptability and usefulness of the letter. We also conducted follow-up telephone interviews with a subgroup of respondents to explore some of the survey findings in greater depth. RESULTS: 85.3% (663/767) of patients completed the questionnaire. Sixty-five percent of respondents recalled receiving the reminder (n=431), and of those, 77.3% found it helpful. Of the respondents who recalled the letter and received a flu shot (n=348), 11.2% indicated they might not have done so without the letter. The majority of respondents reported that they would like to continue receiving reminder letters for influenza vaccinations (63.0%) and other preventive services (77.1%) from their family physician. The interview participants endorsed the use of reminder letters for improving vaccination coverage in older adults, but did not feel that the strategy was required for them personally. CONCLUSIONS: The general attitude of older adults towards reminder letters was favourable, and the reminders appear to have contributed to a modest increase in influenza vaccination rates.     

Vaccination of high-risk patients for influenza. A comparison of telephone and mail reminder methods

During the 1984-1985 influenza season two study groups were used to compare telephone and letter reminder methods with a control group that received no reminder to determine which was the most effective strategy to increase influenza vaccination rates among the high-risk patient population of a university-based family practice. Seven hundred eighty-seven high-risk patients were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: a mailed-reminder group, a telephone-reminder group, and a control group. Vaccination rates for both reminder methods were significantly higher than for the control group (P less than .02), and if successfully contacted, the telephone-reminder group had a significantly better vaccination rate than the mailed-reminder group (P less than .05). If successful telephone contact can be made, this reminder method is more effective than a letter reminder to increase influenza vaccination rates among high-risk patients.     

How much does a reminder letter increase cervical screening among under‐screened women in NSW?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a direct mail-out campaign to increase Pap screening rates in women who have not had a test in 48 months. METHODS: Ninety thousand under-screened women were randomised to be mailed a 48-month reminder letter to have a Pap test (n=60,000), or not to be mailed a letter (n=30,000). Differences in Pap test rates were assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, by chi2 tests of significance between Pap test rates in letter versus no-letter groups, and by proportional hazards regression modelling of predictors of a Pap test with letter versus no-letter as the main study variable. T-tests were conducted on mean time to Pap test to assess whether time to Pap test was significantly different between the intervention and control groups. RESULTS: After 90 days following each mail-out, Pap test rates in the letter group were significantly higher than in the non-letter group, by approximately two percentage points. After controlling for potential confounders, the hazard ratio of a Pap test within 90 days of a mail-out in the letter group was 1.5 compared with 1.0 in the no-letter group. Hazard ratios of having a Pap test within 90 days decreased significantly with time since last Pap test (p<0.0001); were significantly higher than 1.0 for most non-metropolitan areas of NSW compared with metropolitan areas; and increased significantly with age (p<0.0001). Pap test hazard ratios were not associated with socio-economic status of area of residence, but the hazard ratio was significantly higher than 1.0 if the reminder letter was sent after the Christmas/New Year break. No significant differences in mean time to Pap test were found between the letter and no-letter groups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Being sent a reminder letter is associated with higher Pap testing rates in under-screened women.     

Beliefs and Attitudes about Influenza Immunization among Parents of Children with Chronic Medical Conditions over a Two-Year Period

Influenza vaccination is recommended for children with chronic medical conditions yet is infrequently performed. The reasons for low influenza vaccination rates in this group have not been well studied. We assessed and compared parents of children with chronic medical conditions regarding their beliefs and attitudes about influenza vaccination in 2003 and 2004. Parents of 2- to 13-year-old children with chronic medical conditions from health centers in low-income urban neighborhoods completed a 19-question survey, mailed following the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 influenza seasons. Parent-reported influenza vaccination rate declined from 2003 (44%) to 2004 (25%). The most important factors related to influenza vaccination status were perceived doctor's recommendation (odds ratio [OR] = 6.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.7–9.7), parents' belief that the child should be vaccinated (OR = 5.4, 95%CI = 3.3–8.8), relatives' belief that the child should be vaccinated (OR = 1.7, 95%CI = 1.1–2.7), easy access to the doctor's office for a flu shot (OR = 2.4, 95%CI = 1.4–4.2), and receipt of a reminder from the doctor's office (OR = 1.7, 95%CI = 1.1–2.6). In 2004 compared with 2003, fewer parents reported getting a reminder, and fewer believed that their child's doctor recommended flu vaccine. Doctors' recommendation that children with chronic medical conditions should receive an annual influenza vaccine and vaccine availability are important factors that resulted in a higher likelihood of influenza vaccination. Our findings that fewer parents reported receiving reminders and that fewer children were vaccinated in 2004 suggest that sustained improvements in vaccination rates may require continual changes in the format and delivery method of vaccination reminders from physicians.     

The effect of a combined influenza/pneumococcal immunization reminder letter

BACKGROUND: The effect of a combined influenza and pneumococcal immunization reminder letter on increasing influenza and pneumococcal immunization rates, and the timeliness of receiving immunizations after receipt of a reminder letter, have not been examined. This study addresses these issues using a sample of new Medicare beneficiaries residing in Hawaii. METHODS: Newly enrolled Medicare beneficiaries in Hawaii from 25 September 1995 through 31 August 1996 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group 1, no letter (n=2144); Group 2, influenza immunization reminder letter only (n=2213); or Group 3, pneumococcal and influenza immunization reminder letter (n=2171). Health Care Financing Administration claims data were compared among groups. RESULTS: In Group 3, the influenza immunization rate increased 3.8 percentage points (n=87; p=0.017) compared with Group 1. The Group 3 pneumococcal immunization rate increased 3.5 percentage points (n=78; p<0.001) compared to Group 1 and 4.0 percentage points (n=86; p<0.001) compared to Group 2. Sixty-six beneficiaries in Group 3 received simultaneous pneumococcal and influenza immunizations, a significant difference compared to Group 1 or Group 2. Increases in immunizations were observed immediately following the reminder letters and the effect persisted for 5 to 7 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The combination letter increased both influenza and pneumococcal immunization rates and the simultaneous administration of immunizations without detrimental effect to influenza immunization rates. A combined reminder letter is inexpensive and recommended as part of a multicomponent campaign for adult immunization.     

Attitudes towards vaccination against seasonal influenza of health-care workers in primary health-care settings in Greece

Vaccination of health-care workers (HCWs) against seasonal influenza has been consistently recommended worldwide in order to prevent nosocomial transmission and ensure delivery of health-care services during outbreaks. We describe the effects of a nationwide campaign to promote influenza vaccination among HCWs working in primary health-care centers in Greece. During 2008–2009 the mean vaccination rate among HCWs in primary health-care centers was 22.8% (range: 0–100%), with a considerable variability among Health Districts (range: 12.66–54.68%). Logistic regression showed that history of previous influenza vaccination, influenza vaccination the previous season, being a physician and a larger number of employees were associated with increased vaccination rates. Main reason for vaccination was self-protection (75.90%), while main reasons for refusing vaccination were belief that they are not at risk for contracting influenza (44.5%), doubts about vaccine effectiveness (20.79%), and fear of vaccine adverse effects (20.33%).     

Determinants of Influenza Vaccination Among Young Children in an Inner-City Community

Few studies have examined potential factors that contribute to low influenza vaccination rates among minority children. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of early childhood influenza vaccination among young black and Latino children, living in inner-city neighborhoods, and examine the effects of child, caregiver and health system factors. Secondary data analysis was performed using a survey about medical home experiences conducted from May 2007–June 2008. The study sample was limited to children ≥6 months in any influenza season prior to the 2006–2007 influenza season. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression tested associations between influenza vaccination receipt and socio-demographic and health system characteristics. One-third of children received an influenza vaccination by the end of 2006–2007 season, while only 11% received a vaccination within their first season of eligibility. Black children were more likely than Latino children to have been vaccinated (50% vs. 31%, P < 0.01) during their first few eligible seasons. Children whose mothers were older, proficient in English, and frequent users of healthcare were more likely to obtain vaccination. Child attendance at healthcare settings with immunization reminder systems was also positively correlated with influenza vaccination. Our findings suggest that initial vaccination receipt among minority children from inner-city communities might be improved by expanded influenza promotion activities targeting younger mothers or those with limited English proficiency. Strategies to increase the frequency of child’s actual contact with the medical home, such as reminder systems, may be useful in improving uptake of influenza vaccination among inner-city, minority children.     

Understanding Adult Vaccination in Urban,Lower-Socioeconomic Settings: Influence of Physician and Prevention Systems

PURPOSE Vaccination rates for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and influenza vaccine are relatively low in disadvantaged urban populations. This study was designed to assess which physician and practice characteristics might explain differences in rates across physicians.METHODS PPV and influenza vaccination rates were determined for 2,021 patients aged 65 years and older receiving care from 30 physicians in 17 practices surveyed about their office systems for providing adult immunizations. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses were used to examine the relationships among vaccination rates, patient-level characteristics, and physician variables.RESULTS Overall, the weighted PPV vaccination rate was 60.0% and varied widely across physicians (range, 11%–98%). At the patient level in HLM, patient race (P=.01) and age (P = .02), but not neighborhood income, were associated with PPV status. By linking physician survey data with PPV rates, we found the best pair of physician variables to be “reported time spent with patients for a well visit” (P = .01) and “use of enhanced immunization documentation” (P=.10). The overall influenza vaccination rate was 51.9% (range, 22%–96%). Patient race (P=.003) and age (P = .002) were associated with influenza vaccination. The pair of physician variables with the strongest association with influenza vaccination was “use of standing orders” (P <.001) and “average observed physician examination room time,” regardless of visit type (P=.02).CONCLUSIONS Vaccination rates vary widely in urban settings and are associated with practice characteristics such as time spent with patients and, for influenza vaccine, use of standing orders.     

Improving the rates of inpatient pneumococcal vaccination: impact of standing orders versus computerized reminders to physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interventions using standing orders and computerized reminders to physicians on inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to a control group. DESIGN: Open trial of the following approaches, each on a different ward: (1) standing orders for vaccination of eligible consenting patients, (2) computerized reminders to physicians, and (3) usual practice. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four patients were admitted to three 30-bed inpatient medical wards during a 4-month period in 1999 at one hospital. Unvaccinated patients 65 years or older and competent to give oral consent were included. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist activated a standing orders protocol for vaccination of all eligible consenting patients on one ward and computerized reminders to physicians on a second ward. A third ward served as a control group. RESULTS: Forty-two patients met inclusion criteria and accepted vaccination in the standing orders arm versus 35 patients in the computerized reminder arm. Vaccination rates on the standing orders ward included 98% of those eligible and accepting vaccination, 73% of eligible patients, and 28% of all patients admitted. Rates on the computerized reminder ward were 23%, 15%, and 7%, respectively. All of the rates from the standing orders ward were significantly greater than those from the computerized reminder ward (P < .0001). Only 0.6% of all patients on the control arm were vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Although both interventions were effective in increasing inpatient pneumococcal vaccination rates relative to baseline practice, physician independent initiation of standing orders was clearly more effective.     

Inattention or reluctance? Parental responses to vaccination reminder letters

This paper studies non-adherence in the Danish Childhood Vaccination Program using a nationwide introduction of a vaccination reminder letter policy and administrative data from 2011–2017. First, I provide causal estimates of how the reminder letter policy affects vaccination adherence using a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD). Second, I link parental responses to the reminder letter to parents’ causes for being non-adherent. I find that the reminder letter policy positively affects adherence. However, 72% of non-adherent parents are non-responsive to the reminder letter indicating that reluctance and not inattention is the leading cause for non-adherence. Thus, other policies beyond reminder letters – such as mandatory vaccination laws – are necessary to substantially increase vaccination coverage.     

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in children with high-risk conditions—A systematic review

BackgroundInfluenza is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, especially among the elderly and those with certain chronic diseases. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for individuals in at-risk groups, but rates of vaccination are particularly low in children with high-risk conditions (HRCs).ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of studies that have examined interventions aimed at improving influenza vaccination in children with HRCs.MethodsTwo databases – PubMed and SCOPUS – were searched (with no time or language restrictions) using a combination of keywords – Influenza AND vaccination OR immunization OR children AND asthma OR malignancy OR high-risk AND reminder. Duplicates were removed, and abstracts of relevant articles were screened using specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Thirteen articles were selected, and five additional studies were identified following a review of the reference lists of the initial thirteen articles, bringing the total number to eighteen.ResultsMost studies were conducted in the United States. Among the 18 studies, there was one systematic review of a specific intervention in asthmatic children, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), six before-and-after studies, one non-randomized controlled trial, one retrospective cohort study, one quasi-experimental post-test study, and one letter to editors. Interventions reported include multi-component strategies, letter reminders, telephone recall, letters plus telephone calls, an asthma education tool and year-round scheduling for influenza vaccination, amongst others.ConclusionThere is good evidence that reminder letters will improve influenza vaccination uptake in children with HRCs, but the evidence that telephone recall or a combination of letter reminder and telephone recall will improve uptake is weak. It is not known if multiple reminder letters are more effective than single letters or if multi-component strategies are more effective than single or dual component strategies. There is a need for further research of these interventions, possibly outside the United States.     

The use of patient and physician reminders for preventive services: results from a National Study of Physician Organizations

BACKGROUND: Clinical preventive services improve patient health, and reminder systems can increase the use of such services. However, physician organizations often underutilize clinical preventive service reminders. Little is known about the incentives, capabilities, and organizational characteristics associated with the use of reminders by physician organizations. METHODS: The predictors of patient and physician reminder system use were examined in a sample of 1,104 US physician organizations. The cross-sectional sample was obtained through a telephone survey with a 70% response rate. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of physician organizations used mammogram reminders, 41% used influenza immunization reminders, and 26% used eye exam reminders for patients. Eighteen percent of physician organizations used computer-generated reminders to physicians. Required reporting of data (P = 0.0006), public recognition for quality (P = 0.0002), and IT capabilities (P < 0.0001) were strongly associated with patient reminder use. Medical groups were more likely to use patient-level reminders than independent practice associations (IPAs) (P < 0.0001). Physician reminder use was related to required reporting of data (P < 0.0001) and IT capabilities (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician organizations have relatively low use of preventive service reminders to patients and physicians. Offering quality incentives to physician organizations and improving their IT capabilities may increase the use of preventive service reminders and improve the delivery of preventive care.     

Patient reminder letters to promote annual mammograms: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effects of a reminder letter from a physician (relative to a mammography facility letter or no letter) on appointment compliance among women 50-74 years of age due for an annual screening mammogram. METHODS: A total of 1,562 women were randomly as signed to the groups. Each Group 1 subject received a reminder letter from her physician, each Group 2 subject received a reminder letter from her mammography facility, and Group 3 served as a control group. RESULTS: The return rates for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 47.7, 46.6, and 28.3%, respectively; the overall difference was significant using a chi(2) analysis (P < 0.001). Bonferroni pairwise comparisons indicated no difference between Groups 1 and 2 but significant differences (P < 0.001) between Group 3 and the other two groups. Logistic regression indicated that relative to Group 3, the adjusted odds of returning for Groups 1 and 2 were 2.37 and 2.24, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography providers and their patients likely will benefit from in-reach reminder systems. Physicians who do not use reminder systems should refer their patients to facilities that use these systems.     

Improving influenza vaccination performance in an HMO setting: the use of computer-generated reminders and peer comparison feedback.

We evaluated a program for improving influenza immunization performance in a health maintenance organization (HMO). The HMO implemented several interventions successively from 1984-87: a postcard reminder to members at high risk for complications of influenza, a computer-generated reminder to the physician at the time of any primary care visit by high-risk patients, performance feedback to chiefs of service, and, finally, retrospective feedback to each physician comparing his/her performance with that of the other physicians. We examined immunization rates for a group of members older than age 65, a high-risk group under age 65, and a group of diabetic members who had not been subject to the reminders (vs a group who had been covered by the program). Vaccination rates were increased in those diabetic members who received reminders. Nevertheless, among members younger and older than age 65 whose experience was observed over three flu seasons, a significant increase in vaccination rates was not achieved until physician feedback was added to the program. We conclude that each element of the reminder and feedback program has contributed to the overall increase in vaccination rates at the HMO and that effective ongoing influenza immunization programs can be implemented in practice settings with appropriate systems support.     

Effect of mobile phone text messaging for improving the uptake of influenza vaccination in patients with rare diseases

ObjectivesInfluenza vaccine is recommended in some chronic medical conditions, including several rare diseases. The objectives of the study were to assess the effect of text message reminders on influenza vaccination uptake of patients with selected rare diseases and delayed vaccination, and to describe their characteristics.MethodsQuasi-experimental pre-post intervention study performed along the 2016 influenza vaccination campaign in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed with a selected rare disease were targeted for intervention. SMS were sent to them at least one month after the beginning of the campaign, in four consecutive weeks. Those with no mobile phones available or no certainty of message reception, were assigned as controls. The association between the reception of the SMS and vaccination uptake was assessed using multiple poisson regression models.ResultsOf 69.040 patients with delayed vaccination, 87.2% received an SMS reminder in the asigned contact mobile telephone. Global influenza vaccine coverage reached 41.3%. The uptake of influenza vaccine was significantly higher among those receiving the reminder (9.3% vs. 7.1% in the control group, p < 0.001). Those who received a SMS reminder were 30% more likely to uptake seasonal influenza vaccine. By sex and age, the reception of the reminder was associated with a significantly higher probability of vaccination in men ≥65 years with at least a concurrent chronic condition (IRR: 1.58, CI95%: 1.25–2.00). Among women, this higher probability was detected in those between 14 and 64 years of age (IRR: 1.41, CI95%: 1.22–1.63), and ≥65 years without concurrent chronic conditions (IRR: 1.40, CI95%: 1.05–1.89).ConclusionAlthough the intervention was modestly effective, it proved beneficial in some cases. It can be an additional strategy to improve vaccine uptake, since it is simple, feasible, affordable and easily scalable, particularly when immunization and target population data are available in population registries.     

Pneumococcal Vaccination: Perceptions of Primary Care Physicians

Background.Little is known about barriers to pneumococcal vaccination in the primary care setting.Methods.Mail survey to 405 randomly selected Massachusetts primary care physicians (response rate 68%).Results.Seventy-nine percent considered themselves knowledgeable about current vaccination guidelines, and 75% said vaccination is an important clinical priority. Respondents answered a mean of five of six knowledge questions about vaccination “correctly,” that is, consistent with current scientific evidence or expert opinion. Physicians reported high immunization rates: 51% thought over half their eligible patients were vaccinated; however, only 27% thought their colleagues immunized a similar number of patients. Physician attitude was the strongest independent predictor of high reported immunization rates (odds ratio of 4.7,P= 0.0001). Twenty-four percent of respondents thought physician oversight due to the need to attend to other active medical problems greatly reduces the number of patients they immunize. None of eight other financial, administrative, and clinical barriers were felt to be important by more than 7% of physicians. Sixty-six percent of physicians favored a standing order policy to immunize their eligible patients.Conclusions.Oversight and overestimation of immunization rates appear to be important barriers to pneumococcal vaccination. The literature suggests that reminder and performance feedback systems directed toward eliminating these barriers have had some success; interventions such as standing order policies may yield further improvements and appear to be acceptable to most physicians.     

Association between patient reminders and influenza vaccination status among children

BackgroundPatient reminders are recommended to increase vaccination rates. The objectives of this study were to estimate the percentage of children 6 months–17 years for whom a patient reminder for influenza vaccination was received by a child’s parent or guardian, estimate influenza vaccination coverage by receipt of a patient reminder, and identify factors associated with receipt of a patient reminder.MethodsNational Immunization Survey-Flu (NIS-Flu) data for the 2013–14 influenza season were analyzed. Tests of association between patient reminders and demographic characteristics were conducted using Wald chi-square tests and pairwise comparison t-tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine variables independently associated with receiving a patient reminder.ResultsApproximately 22% of children had a parent or guardian report receiving a patient reminder for influenza vaccination for their child, ranging from 12.9% in Idaho to 41.2% in Mississippi. Children with a patient reminder were more likely to be vaccinated compared with children without a patient reminder (73.7% versus 55.5%). In the multivariable model, reminder receipt was higher for children 6–23 months compared with children 13–17 years, black children compared with white children, and children whose parent completed the survey in English compared with children whose parent completed the survey in a language other than English or Spanish.ConclusionsAlthough patient reminders are associated with a higher likelihood of influenza vaccination, nationally, less than one-fourth of children had a parent report receiving one. Despite being based on parental report, with its limitations, this study suggests that increasing the number of parents who receive patient reminders for their children may improve vaccination coverage among children.     

Collection of vaccination data in the German National Cohort

Background

Data about the vaccination status of participants are required in epidemiological cohort studies whenever infection or immunity is considered as potential exposure or outcome. Within Pretest 2 of the German National Cohort (GNC) we therefore investigated the acceptance and feasibility of extracting vaccination status from vaccination certificates provided by the participants of the study.

Methods

This study was conducted in three study centers (Bremen, n?=?73; Hamburg, n?=?200; Hannover, n?=?193). In order to test if an additional reminder would prevent participants from forgetting their vaccination certificates at home persons willing to participate in Pretest 2 were randomly assigned to one of three invitation groups (IG). About one third of the participants received either no further reminder (IG1), a reminder card together with the appointment letter (IG2) or a separate reminder card 4 days before the appointment (IG3). At the study center, vaccination data were scanned or copied and entered into a database using a unique identification number. Participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire to assess the completeness of the provided vaccination data. Additionally, in one of the three participating study centers, general practitioners (GP) were asked to provide vaccination data from their records following respective participants’ consent. Finally, we compared the influenza data from the vaccination certificates with the influenza data obtained from participants in Pretest 2 by use of a self-administered questionnaire (ID-Screen).

Results

Due to different starting dates of the study the intended reminder procedure was implemented only in Hamburg and Hannover. In Hamburg, significantly more vaccination certificates were submitted by the group which received the reminder card separately 4 days before the examination (IG3) compared to IG1 and IG2 (p?=?0.04). In Hannover, in contrast, most vaccination certificates were brought by those who received the reminder card together with the appointment letter. Overall, the use of a reminder card had a positive but not significant effect as 89?% (185/209) of participants who received the reminder card submitted vaccination data versus 81?% (84/104) of participants who did not receive any reminder card (p?=?0.06). Of all Pretest 2 participants in Hannover, 62?% (120/193) gave written consent for data collection by the GPs. In total, 114 practices were contacted of which 49 (43?%) sent vaccination data. All in all, 360 vaccination certificates with 5065 documented vaccinations were entered into a database, of which 4830 (95?%) were valid for analysis covering a period from 1946 to 2012. The comparison of influenza vaccination data from vaccination certificates to the remembered data from a self-completed questionnaire showed an agreement of data in 46?% (84/184) of cases (Kappa?=?0.48). Influenza vaccinations were underreported in 4?% (7/170) of self-completed questionnaires.

Conclusion

The reliable documentation of vaccinations within the context of the GNC proved to be feasible and thus recommendable at a large scale within the GNC as participants showed high willingness and compliance in providing available vaccination documents. An additional validation by means of documents provided by physicians seems to be possible for more than a quarter of participants. In order to maximize the likelyhood of participants’ of bringing their vaccination certificates it would be sufficient to send a reminder card together with the appointment letter.     

Using physician correspondence and postcard reminders to promote mammography use.

OBJECTIVES. In a health maintenance organization that mails letters to women recommending that they schedule mammograms, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate simple methods of increasing the use of screening mammography. METHODS. Using a 2 x 2 factorial design, we tested the effects of (1) mailing the recommendation letter from each woman's primary care physician rather than from the program director and (2) sending a subsequent reminder postcard. RESULTS. Sending a reminder postcard nearly doubled the odds that women would get mammograms within 1 year (participate). The letter from the woman's personal physician had no effect. Attending a clinic more than 45 minutes from the screening center, being a current smoker, or being in fair or poor health were negatively associated with subsequently obtaining a mammogram. The odds of participation doubled if women had had previous mammograms. CONCLUSIONS. When preceded by written recommendations to schedule mammograms, reminder postcards effectively increased participation. Future randomized trials to promote use of screening mammography should compare interventions with a reminder condition.     

Improving referral compliance after public cholesterol screening.

BACKGROUND. Noncompliance with referral to a physician for retesting and diagnosis is a concern in public cholesterol screening. METHODS. Participants (n = 2109) were referred by a health professional or lay communicator and randomly assigned to a coupon offer, referral reminder letter, or control group. A questionnaire was completed at screening, and a telephone interview was conducted 5 months later. RESULTS. Physician visit rates showed no professional or lay differences. For "no history" subjects, the behavioral interventions were effective compared with controls (coupon = 60.7% and reminder = 57.7% vs control = 46.1%). With professional counseling, only the coupon was effective; for lay counseling, both coupon and reminder yielded higher visit rates. Adjusted for sociodemographics, heart disease risk factors, and health perceptions, the intervention effects remained (professional-coupon offer: odds ratio [OR] = 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21, 3.09; professional-reminder letter: OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.67, 1.63; lay-coupon offer: OR = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.52, 4.18; and lay-reminder letter: OR = 3.10, 95% CI = 1.83, 5.22). CONCLUSIONS. For unaware participants, lay counselors and referral follow-up efforts tailored to specific cholesterol risk groups are indicated.