Table 1.
Study characteristics of reminder and recall studies
| Paper | Study period | Setting and population | Design | Quality | Intervention | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abramson et al.13 | 1993 | Public health centre and children's hospital continuity clinic, Forsyth County, North Carolina, USA; low socioeconomic status | Randomized controlled trial | 23 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Postcard reminders followed by telephone reminders |
Age appropriate immunisations (DTP/OPV/Hib) at 7 months of age 1 vs. 2, net change = 19% (P <0.00001) |
| Alemi et al.14 | 1993–1994 | Paediatric outpatient clinic, Cleveland, USA; children under 6 months of age at recruitment; urban; predominantly ethnic minorities; low socioeconomic status | Controlled intervention trial | 22.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Computer-generated telephone reminders and recalls |
On time immunisation with complete series (DTP/OPV/MMR/Hib): 1 vs. 2, net change = 24.4% (P = 0.0005) |
| Alto et al.15 | 1991 | Family practice clinic, Colorado, USA; children between 2 months and 7 years old; low socioeconomic status | Randomized controlled trial | 26 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Specific postcard reminders followed by telephone reminders |
Up to date with DTP/OPV/MMR/Hib vaccinations: 1 vs. 2, net change = 8% (P <0.011) |
| Daley et al.16 | 2000 | Primary Care Clinic, Denver, Colorado, USA; Predominantly Medicaid and uninsured patient population; Children aged 6 weeks to 22 months | Randomized controlled trial | 29.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Reminder letter followed by telephone recall 10 days later |
Immunisation with one or more doses of PCV7: 1 vs. 2, net change = 2.8% (95% confidence interval –1.8% to 7.4%) |
| Dini et al.17 | 1993–1996 | County health department, Denver, USA; children aged 60–90 days who had received the first dose of DTP and/or IPV | Randomized controlled trial | 25 | 1.Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Telephone messages vs. 3. Letter reminders vs. 4. Telephone messages followed by letters |
Completed immunisation series by 24 months of age 1 vs. any intervention net change = 8.3% (RR (rate ratio) = 1.21; CI (confidence interval) = 1.01-1.44). 1 vs. 2 net change = 8.4%, 1 vs. 3 net change = 7.3%, 1 vs. 4 net change = 9% |
| Hawe et al.18 | Not reported | Local government-operated public vaccination clinic, Ballarat, Australia, 259 children due for measles vaccination aged 12 months | Randomized controlled trial | 26.5 | 1. Usual reminder card 2.Health belief model reminder card |
Usual card group 67% vaccinated Health belief model card group 79% 12% difference (0.026) |
| Irigoyen et al.19 | 1997 | Paediatric clinic, New York, USA; children aged 4–18 months | Controlled intervention trial | 26.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Postcard reminder vs. 3. Telephone reminder vs. 4. Postcard plus telephone reminder |
No significant difference in vaccination coverage by study group |
| Irigoyen et al.20 | 2001 | Five inner-city community paediatric practices, New York, USA; children aged 6 weeks to 15 months due or late for DTP | Randomized controlled trial | 27 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Continuous postcard reminders (as many as needed) vs. 3. Limited postcard reminders (up to 3) |
Up to date 4:3:1:3 at 3 months post randomization 1 vs. 2 net change = 5.3% (P < 0.01), 1 vs. 3 net change = 1.5% (not significant) Up to date 4:3:1:3 at 6 months post randomization 1 versus 2 net change = 4.9% (p < 0.05), 1 vs. 3 net change = 2.8% (not significant) Multivariate analysis showed reminders had no independent effect on immunization outcomes |
| Kempe et al.21 | 1999 | Outpatient paediatric clinic, urban teaching hospital, Denver, Colorado, USA; children aged 5–17 months; low socioeconomic status; highly transient population | Randomized controlled trial | 26.5 | 1.Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Postcard reminder plus telephone reminders |
UTD at 12 months 1 vs. 2 net change 12% (P = 0.07) |
| LeBaron et al.22 | 1996–1998 | Fulton County, Georgia, USA; children born between 1 July 1995 and 6 August 1995 | Randomized controlled trial | 25 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Automated telephone or mail reminder recall vs. 3. In-person telephone, mail or home visit recall vs. 4. Auto-dialler with outreach backup |
UTD with DTP/OPV/MMR/Hob (4:3:4:1) at 24 months of age 1 vs. 2 net change = 6% (P < 0.05), 1 vs. 3 net change = 3% (not significant), 1 vs. 4 net change = 4% (not significant) |
| Lieu et al.23 | 1994–1995 | Managed care organization, Northern California, children aged 20–24 months old, n = 149 control group, n = 172 intervention group | Randomized controlled trial | 23.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Patient recalls via computer-generated personalized letter |
MMR by age 24 months, 1 vs. 2 = 19% net change (P < 0.001) |
| Lieu et al.24 | 1996–1997 | Health Maintenance Organization, California, USA; under-immunised 20-month old children | Randomized controlled trial | 23 | 1. Automated telephone reminder vs. 2. Letter reminder vs. 3. Automated telephone reminder followed by a reminder letter 1 week later vs. 4.Letter reminder followed by an automated telephone message 1 week later |
Proportion of under-immunised children who received any needed vaccinations by age 24 months, 1 vs. 2 no net change; 1 vs. 4 net change 14% (P = 0.02); 2 vs. 4 14% (P = 0.01), 1 vs. 3 net change = 9% (P = 0.1), 2 vs. 3 net change 9% (P = 0.09) |
| Mason and Donnelly25 | 1998–1999 | Local health authority, Wales, UK; children aged 21 months who had not received MMR vaccine | Randomized controlled trial | 24 | 1. Usual care vs. 2. Personal reminder letter and educational leaflet |
Immunised with MMR at age 21–24 months of age 1 vs. 2, net change = 1.1% (95% CI –3.3–5.5); immunised with MMR at >24 months of age, 1 vs. 2 = 1.1% (95% CI –3.6–5.7) |
| Morgan et al.26 | 1996 | South Glamorgan, Wales, UK; children aged between 9 months and 21 months | Randomized controlled trial | 27.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Non-directive telephone call to child's health visitor vs. 3. Mailed reminder |
Immunised with MMR 1 vs. 2 net change = –7%, 1 vs. 3 net change = –11% |
| Rodewald et al.27 | 1994–1995 | Nine primary care practices, Rochester, New York, USA; 3015 infants | Randomized controlled trial (two by two factorial design) | 25.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) 2. Tracking/Outreach/prompting- lay outreach workers using postcards, telephone calls and home visits 3. Tracking/outreach 4. Prompting- during visits to primary care office, marking charts |
UTD net change 1 vs. 2 = 21%; 1 vs. 3 21%; 1 vs. 4 = 2% (none showed significance); 1 vs. 2 plus 3 P < 0.001 |
| Stehr-Green et al.28 | 1990 | Public health clinics, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Average age 8.7–9.2 months; n = 110 control group, n = 112 intervention group | Randomized controlled trial | 24.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Automated telephone reminder (max 9 attempts) |
DTP immunisation, 1 vs. 2 = 3% net change (non-significant) |
| Szilagyi et al.29 | 1993–1996 | Three geographical regions of Monroe County, New York, USA; children aged up to 2 years | Randomized controlled trial | 24.5 | 1. Usual care 1993 (control group) 2. Staged intervention of increasing intensity letters, postcards or phone calls and outreach 1999 |
UTD with DTP/OPV/MMR/Hib 4:3:1:1 1 vs. 2 net gain = Monroe county 20%, suburbs 15%, inner city 29%, rest of city 17% (significance not stated) |
| Tollestrup and Hubbard30 | 1987 | County health department clinics, Washington, USA; children aged up to 5 years | Controlled intervention trial | 23.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Recall letter if 1 month overdue |
DTP vaccination within 5 months, 1 vs. 2 net change = 18% (P < 0.01) |
| Vivier et al.31 | 1998 | Primary care clinics, Rhode Island, USA; children enrolled in a managed care programme, up to the age of 6 years | Randomized controlled trial | 24 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Telephone reminder vs. 3. Postal reminder vs. 4. Sequential postal/telephone reminders |
Immunisations UTD, 1 vs. 2, net change = 11% (P > 0.05); 1 vs. 3, net change = 12% (P > 0.05); 1 vs. 4, net change = 14% (P > 0.05); 1 vs. 2–4 combined P < 0.05 |
| Wilcox et al.32 | 1997 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; 1752 children aged 6–10 months | Randomized controlled trial | 24.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Outreach |
One immunisation received during study period 1 vs. 2 net change = 18% (P < 0.001); UTD with immunisations 1 vs. 2 net change –1% (not significant) |
| Yokley and Glenwick33 | Not stated | Public health clinic, Akron, Ohio, USA; children aged under 5 years; mean age 37 months; n = 183–195 in each group | Group randomized trial by family | 23.5 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. General postal patient reminder vs. 3. Specific postal patient reminder vs. 4. Specific postal patient reminder plus special out of hours clinics vs. 5. Specific postal patient reminder plus parent incentive lottery |
Vaccinated with at least one antigen after 3 months: 1 vs. 2 = 3% net change (non-significant), 1 vs. 3 = 13% (non-significant), 1 vs. 4 = 16% (significant), 1 vs. 5 = 18% (significant) |
| Young et al.34 | 1978 | Ohio, USA; 6-month old high-risk children | Randomized controlled trial | 21 | 1. Usual care (control group) vs. 2. Mailed reminder |
One immunisation received during study period 1 vs. 2 net change = 16% (P = 0.02); UTD with vaccinations 1 vs. 2 net change = 12% (P = 0.06) |