Review from JAMA — Effect of Patient Reminder/Recall Interventions on Immunization Rates — A Review — ContextImmunization rates for children and adults remain below national goals. While experts recommend that health care professionals remind patients of needed immunizations, few practitioners actually use reminders. Little is known about the effectiveness of reminders in different settings or patient populations.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of patient reminder systems in improving immunization rates, and to compare the effectiveness of different types of reminders for a variety of patient populations.Data SourcesA search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and CAB Health Abstracts. Relevant articles, as well as published abstracts, conference proceedings, and files of study collaborators, were searched for relevant references.Study Selection and Data ExtractionEnglish-language studies involving patient reminder/recall interventions (using criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration) were eligible for review if they involved randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, or interrupted time series, and measured immunization rates. Of 109 studies identified, 41 met eligibility criteria. Studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers using a standardized checklist. Results of studies are expressed as absolute percentage-point changes in immunization rates and as odds ratios (ORs). Studies with similar characteristics of patients or interventions were pooled (random effects model).Data SynthesisPatient reminder systems were effective in improving immunization rates in 33 (80%) of the 41 studies, irrespective of baseline immunization rates, patient age, setting, or vaccination type. Increases in immunization rates due to reminders ranged from 5 to 20 percentage points. Reminders were effective for childhood vaccinations (OR, 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-2.72), childhood influenza vaccinations (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.10-8.60), adult pneumococcus or tetanus vaccinations (OR, 5.14; 95% CI, 1.21-21.78), and adult influenza vaccinations (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.69-3.10). While reminders were most effective in academic settings (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.98-5.58), they were also highly effective in private practice settings (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45-2.22) and public health clinics (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.42-3.07). All types of reminders were effective (postcards, letters, and telephone or autodialer calls), with telephone reminders being most effective but costliest.ConclusionsPatient reminder systems in primary care settings are effective in improving immunization rates. Primary care physicians should use patient reminders to improve immunization delivery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic impact of the 2009 routine US childhood immunization schedule, including diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate, inactivated poliovirus, measles/mumps/rubella, hepatitis B, varicella, 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate, hepatitis A, and rotavirus vaccines; influenza vaccine was not included. METHODS: Decision analysis was conducted using population-based vaccination coverage, published vaccine efficacies, historical data on disease incidence before vaccination, and disease incidence reported during 2005 to 2009. Costs were estimated using the direct cost and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspectives. Program costs included vaccine, administration, vaccine-associated adverse events, and parent travel and work time lost. All costs were inflated to 2009 dollars, and all costs and benefits in the future were discounted at a 3% annual rate. A hypothetical 2009 US birth cohort of 4 261 494 infants over their lifetime was followed up from birth through death. Net present value (net savings) and benefit-cost ratios of routine childhood immunization were calculated. RESULTS: Analyses showed that routine childhood immunization among members of the 2009 US birth cohort will prevent ∼42 000 early deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of $13.5 billion in direct costs and $68.8 billion in total societal costs, respectively. The direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination with these 9 vaccines were 3.0 and 10.1. CONCLUSIONS: From both direct cost and societal perspectives, vaccinating children as recommended with these vaccines results in substantial cost savings.

Background. Hospitalization rates for childhood asthma are three times as high in Boston, Massachusetts, as in Rochester, New York; New Haven, Connecticut, rates are intermediate. We undertook this study to determine how care for children admitted for asthma varies across these communities. Methods. We performed a community-wide retrospective chart review. We reviewed a random sample of all asthma hospitalizations, from 1988 to 1990, of children 2 to 12 years old living in these communities (n = 614). Abstracted data included demographics, illness severity, and treatment before admission. Results. Compared with Rochester children, Boston children were less likely to have received maintenance preventive therapy (inhaled corticosteroids or cromolyn [odds ratio (OR), 0.4 (0.2, 0.9)]), acute "rescue" therapy (oral corticosteroids [OR, 0.2 (0.1, 0.4)]), or inhaled betaagonist therapy [OR, 0.5 (0.3, 1.0)]. A larger proportion of admitted asthmatic patients in Boston (34%) were in the least severely ill group—oxygen saturation 95% or above—compared with patients in Rochester (20%). Conclusions. The quality of ambulatory care, including choice of preventive therapies and thresholds for admission, likely plays a key role in determining community hospitalization rates for chronic conditions such as childhood asthma.