Public health in managed care: a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of postcard reminders

A meta-analysis of influenza vaccination following correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19

Background

High vaccination rates are needed to protect against influenza and to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Health authorities need to know if supplementing mass communications with direct correspondence to the community would increase uptake.

Objectives

The primary objective is to determine if sending a single written message directly to individuals increases influenza vaccine uptake, and a secondary objective is to identify any identified content shown to increase influenza vaccine uptake.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched for RCTs testing a single correspondence for members of the community in OECD countries to obtain influenza vaccination. A meta-analysis with inverse-variance, random-effects modelling was used to estimate a mean, weighted risk ratio effect size measure of vaccine uptake. Studies were quality assessed and analysis was undertaken to account for potential publication bias.

Results

Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials were included, covering 45 interventions. Of the 45 interventions, 37 (82.2%) report an increase in influenza vaccination rates. A formal meta-analysis shows that sending a single written message increased influenza vaccine uptake by 16%, relative to the no contact comparator group (RR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.13-1.20], Z = 9.25, p < .001). Analysis shows that the intervention is effective across correspondence type, age group, time, and location, and after allowing for risk of publication bias.

Limitations

The generalizability of results across the OECD may be questioned.

Conclusions and implications

The implication for public health authorities organizing vaccination programs for influenza, and arguably also for COVID-19, is that sending written vaccination correspondence to members of the community is likely to increase uptake. Keywords: vaccine uptake, COVID-19, influenza, direct correspondence, meta-analysis.

This study is pre-registered on osf.io; details can be found at https://osf.io/98mr7

Multiple mail reminders to increase adherence to influenza vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Different interventions have been proposed to reinforce the use of the influenza vaccine. The use of reminders, whether through letters, phone calls, pamphlets or technological applications, among others, has stood out among those aimed at increasing ad-herence to treatment. However, its effectiveness is not clear. In this summary, which is part of a series of reminder evaluations, we assess the use of multiple mail reminders.

METHODS

We conducted a search in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic health reviews, which is maintained by screening multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted the data from the identified reviews, analyzed the data from the primary studies, performed a meta-analysis and prepared a summary table of the results using the GRADE method.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified eight systematic reviews including 35 primary studies, of which four analyze the use of more than one letter as a reminder. We conclude that the use of multiple mail reminders probably increase adherence to influenza vaccination in patients over 60; while it may make little or no difference in children under 6 years, but the certainty of the evidence is low.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 years and older varies by country and participant characteristics. This review updates versions published in 2010 and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess access, provider, system, and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC for this update, as well as WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies to 7 December 2017. We also searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials of interventions to increase influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years or older in the community.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new RCTs for this update (total 61 RCTs; 1,055,337 participants). Trials involved people aged 60 years and older living in the community in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited some meta-analyses. We assessed studies as at low risk of bias for randomisation (38%), allocation concealment (11%), blinding (44%), and selective reporting (100%). Half (51%) had missing data. We assessed the evidence as low-quality. We identified three levels of intervention intensity: low (e.g. postcards), medium (e.g. personalised phone calls), and high (e.g. home visits, facilitators).Increasing community demand (12 strategies, 41 trials, 53 study arms, 767,460 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed was client reminders or recalls by letter plus leaflet or postcard compared to reminder (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15; 3 studies; 64,200 participants). Successful interventions tested by single studies were patient outreach by retired teachers (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22); invitations by clinic receptionists (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76); nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67); medical students counselling patients (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35); and multiple recall questionnaires (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24).Some interventions could not be meta-analysed due to significant heterogeneity: 17 studies tested simple reminders (11 with 95% CI entirely above unity); 16 tested personalised reminders (12 with 95% CI entirely above unity); two investigated customised compared to form letters (both 95% CI above unity); and four studies examined the impact of health risk appraisals (all had 95% CI above unity). One study of a lottery for free groceries was not effective.Enhancing vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 10 arms, 9353 participants)We meta-analysed results from two studies of home visits (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61) and two studies that tested free vaccine compared to patient payment for vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82). We were unable to conduct meta-analyses of two studies of home visits by nurses plus a physician care plan (both with 95% CI above unity) and two studies of free vaccine compared to no intervention (both with 95% CI above unity). One study of group visits (OR 27.2, 95% CI 1.60 to 463.3) was effective, and one study of home visits compared to safety interventions was not.Provider- or system-based interventions (11 strategies, 15 trials, 17 arms, 278,524 participants)One successful intervention that could be meta-analysed focused on payments to physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77). Successful interventions tested by individual studies were: reminding physicians to vaccinate all patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); posters in clinics presenting vaccination rates and encouraging competition between doctors (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); and chart reviews and benchmarking to the rates achieved by the top 10% of physicians (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97).We were unable to meta-analyse four studies that looked at physician reminders (three studies with 95% CI above unity) and three studies of facilitator encouragement of vaccination (two studies with 95% CI above unity). Interventions that were not effective were: comparing letters on discharge from hospital to letters to general practitioners; posters plus postcards versus posters alone; educational reminders, academic detailing, and peer comparisons compared to mailed educational materials; educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback; and an intervention to increase staff vaccination rates.Interventions at the societal levelNo studies reported on societal-level interventions.Study funding sourcesStudies were funded by government health organisations (n = 33), foundations (n = 9), organisations that provided healthcare services in the studies (n = 3), and a pharmaceutical company offering free vaccines (n = 1). Fifteen studies did not report study funding sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified interventions that demonstrated significant positive effects of low (postcards), medium (personalised phone calls), and high (home visits, facilitators) intensity that increase community demand for vaccination, enhance access, and improve provider/system response. The overall GRADE assessment of the evidence was moderate quality. Conclusions are unchanged from the 2014 review.

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

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 primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.

Effectiveness of short message services reminder on childhood immunization programme in Kadoma, Zimbabwe - a randomized controlled trial, 2013

BACKGROUND

Globally, non-attendance for immunization appointments remains a challenge to healthcare providers. A review of the 2011 immunization coverage for Kadoma City, Zimbabwe was 74% for Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV), Pneumococcal and Pentavalent antigens. The immunization coverage was less than 90%, which is the target for Kadoma City. Adoption of short message services (SMS) reminders has been shown to enhance attendance in some medical settings. The study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of SMS reminders on immunization programme for Kadoma City.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted at Kadoma City clinics in Zimbabwe. Women who delivered and were residents of Kadoma City were recruited into the study. In the intervention group, SMS reminders were sent at 6, 10 and 14 weeks in addition to routine health education. In the non-intervention no SMS reminders were used, however routine health education was offered. Data were collected using interviewer administered questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Epi Info 7™, where frequencies, means, risk ratios and risk differences were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 304 participants were recruited, 152 for the intervention group and 152 for the non-intervention group. The immunization coverage at 6 weeks was 97% in the intervention group and 82% in the non-intervention group (p < 0.001). At 14 weeks immunization coverage was 95% for intervention and 75% for non-intervention group (p < 0.001). Those who did not delay receiving immunization at 14 weeks was 82% for the intervention and 8% for non-intervention group. Median delay for intervention was 0 days (Q1 = 0; Q3 = 0) and 10 days (Q1 = 6; Q3 = 17) for non-intervention group. The risk difference (RD) for those who received SMS reminders than those in the non intervention group was 16.3% (95% CI: 12.5-28.0) at 14 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Immunization coverage in the intervention group was significantly higher than in non-intervention group. Overall increase in immunization coverage can be attributed to use of SMS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN70918594 . Registration Date: 28 August 2014.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 and older is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess access, provider, system and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May week 3 2014), EMBASE (1980 to June 2014), AgeLine (1978 to 4 June 2014), ERIC (1965 to June 2014) and CINAHL (1982 to June 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 and older.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted influenza vaccine uptake data.

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified 13 new RCTs; the review now includes a total of 57 RCTs with 896,531 participants. The trials included community-dwelling seniors in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited meta-analysis. The percentage of trials with low risk of bias for each domain was as follows: randomisation (33%); allocation concealment (11%); blinding (44%); missing data (49%) and selective reporting (100%). Increasing community demand (32 trials, 10 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: three trials (n = 64,200) of letter plus leaflet/postcard compared to letter (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15); two trials (n = 614) of nurses/pharmacists educating plus vaccinating patients (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.66); single trials of a phone call from a senior (n = 193) (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22), a telephone invitation versus clinic drop-in (n = 243) (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76), a free groceries lottery (n = 291) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.76) and nurses educating and vaccinating patients (n = 485) (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67).We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: postcard/letter/pamphlets (16 trials, n = 592,165); tailored communications (16 trials, n = 388,164); customised letter/phone-call (four trials, n = 82,465) and client-based appraisals (three trials, n = 4016), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Enhancing vaccination access (10 trials, six strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2112) of home visits compared to clinic invitation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61); two trials (n = 2251) of free vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82) and one trial (n = 321) of patient group visits (OR 24.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 425.32). One trial (n = 350) of a home visit plus vaccine encouragement compared to a home visit plus safety advice was non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: nurse home visits (two trials, n = 2069) and free vaccine compared to no intervention (two trials, n = 2250). Provider- or system-based interventions (17 trials, 11 strategies)The interventions with a statistically significant result were: two trials (n = 2815) of paying physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77); one trial (n = 316) of reminding physicians about all their patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); one trial (n = 8376) of posters plus postcards (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); one trial (n = 1360) of chart review/feedback (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97) and one trial (n = 27,580) of educational outreach/feedback (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.81).Trials of posters plus postcards versus posters (n = 5753), academic detailing (n = 1400) and increasing staff vaccination rates (n = 26,432) were non-significant.We did not pool the following trials due to considerable heterogeneity: reminding physicians (four trials, n = 202,264) and practice facilitators (three trials, n = 2183), although several trials showed the interventions were effective. Interventions at the societal level We identified no RCTs of interventions at the societal level.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are interventions that are effective for increasing community demand for vaccination, enhancing access and improving provider/system response. Heterogeneity limited pooling of trials.

A randomized trial of the effect of centralized reminder/recall on immunizations and preventive care visits for adolescents

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a managed care-based patient reminder/recall system on immunization rates and preventive care visits among low-income adolescents.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial between December 2009 and December 2010 that assigned adolescents aged 11-17 years to one of three groups: mailed letter, telephone reminders, or control. Publicly insured youths (n = 4115) were identified in 37 participating primary care practices. The main outcome measures were immunization rates for routine vaccines (meningococcus, pertussis, HPV) and preventive visit rates at study end.

RESULTS

Intervention and control groups were similar at baseline for demographics, immunization rates, and preventive visits. Among adolescents who were behind at the start, immunization rates at study end increased by 21% for mailed (P < .01 vs control), 17% for telephone (P < .05), and 13% for control groups. The proportion of adolescents with a preventive visit (within 12 months) was: mailed (65%; P < .01), telephone (63%; P < .05), and controls (59%). The number needed to treat for an additional fully vaccinated adolescent was 14 for mailed and 25 for telephone reminders; for an additional preventive visit, it was 17 and 29. The intervention cost $18.78 (mailed) or $16.68 (phone) per adolescent per year to deliver. The cost per additional adolescent fully vaccinated was $463.99 for mailed and $714.98 for telephone; the cost per additional adolescent receiving a preventive visit was $324.75 and $487.03.

CONCLUSIONS

Managed care-based mail or telephone reminder/recall improved adolescent immunizations and preventive visits, with modest costs and modest impact.

Interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates of those 60 years and older in the community

BACKGROUND

Although the evidence to support influenza vaccination is poor, it is promoted by many health authorities. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in those 60 years or older.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of interventions to increase influenza vaccination rates in those 60 or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 3), containing the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to July 2010), PubMed (January 1950 to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 28), AgeLine (1978 to July 2010), ERIC (1965 to July 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to increase influenza vaccination rates in those aged 60 years and older, recording influenza vaccination status either through clinic records, billing data or local/national vaccination registers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs were included. All included RCTs studied seniors in the community and in high-income countries. No RCTs of society-level interventions were included. Heterogeneity was marked and meta-analysis was limited. Only five RCTs were graded at low and six at moderate risk of bias. They included three of 13 personalized postcard interventions (all three with the 95% confidence interval (CI) above unity), two of the four home visit interventions (both with 95% CI above unity, but one a small study), three of the four reminder to physicians interventions (none with 95% CI above unity) and three of the four facilitator interventions (one with 95% CI above unity, and one P < 0.01). The other 33 RCTs were at high risk of bias and no recommendations for practice can be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalized postcards or phone calls are effective, and home visits, and facilitators, may be effective. Reminders to physicians are not. There is insufficient good evidence for other interventions.

REACH 2010: New York City

Most immunization coalitions have originated with health care providers, potentially excluding families without medical homes. This study focused on a community-based approach to providing timely vaccinations. A coalition of 23 organizations developed an immunization program in a low-income community in New York City. Nearly 1,000 community health workers incorporated immunization promotion into social service and educational programs. Outcomes were coverage rates for the 4:3:1:3:3 series at 19 to 35 months, which were compared with national data by ethnicity, as reported in the National Immunization Survey 2002-2006. Parents (n = 10,251) of children <5 years received immunization education and reminders. The 2003-2007 rates of 80% equaled or exceeded the national rates for 19- to 35-month-olds, and the 2007 rate of 96.8% far surpassed the national average. Coalitions can effectively integrate immunization promotion activities into community programs. Immunization rate improvements maintained for a 5-year period, suggesting this approach to be sustainable.

Boosting uptake of influenza immunisation: a randomised controlled trial of telephone appointing in general practice

BACKGROUND

Immunisation against influenza is an effective intervention that reduces serologically confirmed cases by between 60% and 70%. Almost all influenza immunisation in the UK is done within general practice. Current evidence on the effectiveness of patient reminders for all types of immunisation programmes is largely based on North American studies.

AIM

To determine whether telephone appointments offered bygeneral practice receptionists increase the uptake of irfluenza immunisation among the registered population aged over 65 years in east London practices.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Three research general practices within the East London and Essex network of researchers (ELENoR).

METHOD

Participants were 1,820 low-risk patients aged 65 to 74 years who had not previously been in a recall system for influenza immunisation at their general practice. The intervention, during October 2000, was a telephone call from the practice receptionist to intervention group households, offering an appointment for influenza immunisation at a nurse-run. clinic Main outcome measures were the numbers of individuals in each group receiving immunisation, and practice costs of a telephone-appointing programme.

RESULTS

intention to treat analysis showed an immunisation rate in the control group of 44%, compared with 50% in the intervention group (odds ratio = 1.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.63). Of the patients making a telephone appointment, 88% recieved immunisation, while 22% of those not wanting an appointment went on to be immunised. In the controlgroup, income generated was 11.35 pounds per immunisation, for each additional immunisation in the intervention group the income was 5.20 pounds. The 'number needed to telephone' was 17.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of influenza immunisation among the low-risk older population in inner-city areas can be boosted by around 6% using a simple intervention by receptionists. Immunisation rates in this low-risk group fell well short of the 60% government target. Improving immunisation rates will require a sustained public health campaign. Retaining the item-of-service payments to practices should support costs of practice-based interventions.

The use of computerized birthday greeting reminders in the management of diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although mailed reminders have been used for prevention among general populations, few studies have evaluated their effectiveness among chronically ill populations.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effectiveness of mailed reminders for improving diabetes management. The reminder included a letter from the individual's primary care physician (PCP), a self-care handbook, a preventive care checklist, and specific recommendations regarding receipt of routine monitoring and screening.

METHODS

Of 195 PCPs practicing with a large group practice, 111 agreed to have their adult patients with diabetes randomized to receive the reminder (n = 1,641) or usual care (n = 1,668). Using data from automated databases, we fit generalized estimating equations to evaluate the effect of reminder receipt on fasting lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin testing, dilated retinal exam receipt, and visit frequency during the 6 and 12 months following randomization, and glycated hemoglobin and cholesterol levels in the year following randomization.

RESULTS

Reminder and usual care recipients did not differ in sociodemographic, clinical, or prior testing characteristics. In the 6 months following randomization, reminder recipients were more likely to receive a retinal exam (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.12 to 1.49) and diabetes visit (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.47). In the 12 months following randomization, reminder recipients were more likely to receive a glycated hemoglobin test (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.43), retinal exam (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.41), and diabetes visit (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.29). In the follow-up year, reminder recipients also tended to have a glycated hemoglobin test that did not reflect poor control (<9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found small but significant improvements in the management of patients with diabetes receiving a computerized mailed reminder.

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.