Interventions to Increase Initial Appointment Attendance in Mental Health Services: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Objective
Although nonattendance at initial appointments in mental health services is a substantial problem, the phenomenon is poorly understood. This review synthesized findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase initial appointment attendance and determined whether theories or models contributed to intervention design.
Methods
Six electronic databases were systematically searched, and reference lists of identified studies were also examined. Studies included were RCTs (including “quasi-randomized” controlled trials) that compared standard practice with an intervention to increase attendance at initial appointments in a sample of adults who had a scheduled initial appointment in a mental health or substance abuse service setting.
Results
Of 144 potentially relevant studies, 21 met inclusion criteria. These studies were reported in 20 different research papers. Of these, 16 studies (N=3,673 participants) were included in the analyses (five were excluded because they reported only nonattendance at the initial appointment). Separate analyses were conducted for each intervention type (opt-in systems, telephone reminders and prompts, orientation and reminder letters, accelerated intake, preappointment completion of psychodynamic questionnaires, and “other”). Narrative synthesis was used for analysis because the high level of heterogeneity between studies precluded a meta-analysis. The results were mixed for all types of intervention. Some isolated high-quality studies of opt-in systems, orientation and reminder letters, and more novel interventions demonstrated a beneficial effect.
Conclusions
The synthesized findings indicated that orientation and reminder letters may have a small beneficial effect. Consistent evidence for the efficacy of other types of common interventions is lacking. More novel interventions, such as asking clients to formulate plans to deal with obstacles to attendance and giving clients a choice of therapist style, showed some promise, but studies require replication.
Nonattendance at initial appointments in outpatient mental health settings has been reported to be almost twice as high as in other specialties (1–4). Initial appointments in mental health services are also less likely than subsequent appointments to be rescheduled, suggesting that many patients do not successfully access help for their problems (5).
Initial appointment nonattendance has been posited to be associated with such factors as having less family support, being younger, and belonging to a racial-ethnic minority group (6). It has also been reported to result in particularly high loss of resources due to wasted clinicians’ time and high administrative costs (7,8).
Currently, there appears to be no clear understanding of how to best address this problem. Moreover, the processes that underlie it are not well understood, which arguably adds a layer of difficulty to designing and evaluating interventions. A systematic review of interventions to increase initial appointment attendance in mental health services is therefore an important step toward understanding and addressing this problem. This review aimed to answer three important questions. What interventions are likely to be most effective in promoting initial appointment attendance? What is the strength of the available evidence for the superiority of various interventions (for example, prompts, reminders, or opt-in systems) over standard procedures? What causal factors are potentially important to address in order to reduce low initial attendance?
A number of reviews have been conducted in this area (9–12). However, they have evaluated only specific types of interventions (for example, opt-in systems) or have focused more generally on early dropout from treatment. We are aware of only one systematic review in this area (12). However, it focused only on the effectiveness of prompts for participants with severe mental illness. A broader systematic review is needed to answer the three questions.
The primary objective of this review was to assess—by identifying randomized controlled trials in this area and synthesizing the findings—the effectiveness of interventions that aim to increase initial appointment attendance in adult outpatient mental health services compared with standard procedure. Second, the review aimed to assess effects of these interventions on other outcomes (for example, cancelled appointments and treatment completion). Third, the review sought to determine whether studies reported an a priori theoretical model justifying the tested intervention and to record which models were most commonly cited.
Methods
Data sources
Before this review was undertaken, a protocol was registered in an online database (13). The online databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, British Nursing Index, and CINAHL were systematically searched on June 18, 2012, from the earliest date of each database. The electronic search strategy combined participant and setting keywords (for example, “mental health” or “psychiatry”) and subject headings (for example, “mental disorders”) with intervention or outcome keywords (for example, “opt-in” or “initial attendance”) and subject headings (for example, “reminder systems”). These keyword and subject heading combinations were used with the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized controlled trials (14). No restrictions were made in terms of language, publication status (peer reviewed or non–peer reviewed), and publication date. Five review papers were also identified (9–12,15), and their reference lists were screened for potential studies.
Selection of trials
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested an intervention against standard care with the explicit aim of increasing initial appointment attendance (or decreasing nonattendance) in adult mental health services were eligible for inclusion. It was also decided to include “quasi-randomized” controlled trials (in which participants are allocated in a way that is similar to randomization, such as alternation) and to investigate with sensitivity analyses the effect of including them in the review, if possible. Studies were eligible if the comparison group received the standard procedure, which was defined as no contact or standard appointment letter.
Studies in which participants were children were excluded because the factors that affect initial appointment attendance are likely to be different when a caregiver is substantially involved in the process. Studies focusing on initial attendance at group appointments were also excluded because it was thought that the barriers to attending a group session and a one-to-one session might be different (for example, not being able to cancel or reschedule a group session).
Two authors (OS and NA) independently screened the 2,418 titles and abstracts that resulted from the searches. A total of 144 reports were obtained for all studies designated by the reviewers as potentially relevant. Four of the full-text articles could not be obtained and could therefore not be assessed for eligibility (16–19).The reference lists of the 144 full-text articles were also screened for additional studies. Disagreements were settled through discussion, and if a consensus could not be reached, a third author (LA, SB, or SC) acted as an arbiter. As a result, 21 studies were included in the review. [A flow diagram illustrating the search procedures is available as an online data supplement to this article.]
The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (20). Each study that was rated “unclear” or “high” on each of the risk domains (selection, information, attrition, and publication bias) was removed when possible in the sensitivity analyses.
Data extraction and analysis
Data extracted from the studies onto a data extraction sheet included sample characteristics and size, intervention and comparison group details, study design, and outcome. Outcome was recorded as the number of participants in each group who attended, did not attend, rescheduled, or cancelled. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment was undertaken independently by three authors (OS, LA, and SB), and any discrepancies in data extraction were discussed by the review team.
Five studies had multiple intervention arms (8,21–24). For these studies, the data from the intervention arm that was deemed to be most resource intensive or most different from the standard procedure were used.
The primary outcome for this review was the number of participants attending the initial appointment session. If a report indicated only the number not attending the initial session, and the number of people who attended could not be obtained from the authors, the study was retained in the review but was excluded from further analyses. The assumption that people who did not fall into the “did not attend” category actually attended their scheduled appointment (as opposed to cancelling or rescheduling) was not deemed to be valid. It is possible that some participants cancelled or rescheduled appointments as a result of the intervention or did not receive an appointment in the first place (that is, they had to opt in). The outcome of attendance was thus chosen specifically to investigate whether these interventions result in increased access to mental health services because studies reporting only nonattendance rates might be filtering out people who are ambivalent about attending. Treatment completion rates, subsequent hospitalizations, and the number of cancelled and rescheduled appointments were also extracted if they were reported.
The primary outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis in which the probability of attending (all participants who attended in the intervention group divided by the number randomly assigned to that group) was divided by the probability of attending in the control group (all participants who attended in the control group divided by the number randomly assigned to that group). A risk ratio (RR) greater than 1 thus indicated that the intervention increased the probability of attending, whereas a RR of less than 1 indicated that the proportion of participants attending was higher in the control group.
Studies included in the analyses were divided into groups by type of intervention (for example, telephone reminder, written reminder, or opt-in system). The results were analyzed separately within each intervention group, because analyzing all interventions together was not deemed clinically meaningful.
To determine whether meta-analyses (pooling outcome statistics) were appropriate in a given intervention group, statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 and Cochrane’s Q statistic. If the I2 statistic was <50% and the Q statistic was nonsignificant at an alpha level of .1, a random-effects model was applied. This method of synthesis was chosen because it is reasonable to assume that studies that evaluate complex interventions are estimating related effects but not exactly the same effects (25). If at this point, however, meta-analyses were deemed inappropriate (for example, because of a high degree of heterogeneity), a narrative synthesis was undertaken. This entailed summarizing (but not pooling) effect sizes of each study in a table and in a forest plot. Similarities and differences between studies were then discussed.
Results
The 21 studies included in this review are summarized in Table 1. The studies were conducted in a range of settings (community mental health centers, hospital outpatient settings, substance abuse clinics, and psychotherapy services) and included data from a total of 5,043 participants. Nine studies were conducted in the United States, ten in the United Kingdom, one in Spain, and one in New Zealand. The studies involved several categories of interventions: four tested opt-in systems (in order to receive an appointment, the participant had to first take some action), six tested telephone call prompts or reminders (telephone contact with the participant before the appointment), five tested orientation or reminder letters (written contact with the participant before the appointment), two tested accelerated intake (reducing time between referral and the first session), two tested sending a psychodynamic questionnaire to the client before the first appointment, and two tested other types of intervention. These other types of interventions were implementation intentions (asking clients to formulate an “if-then” plan to deal with ambivalence toward attending) and giving clients the opportunity to choose the therapist’s style. [A table presenting details of the intervention and control conditions in each study is available in the online data supplement.]
| Study | Setting | Participants | Intervention | Comparison group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opt-in systems | ||||
| Baggaley (27), 1993 | U.K.; hospital-based psychiatric outpatient clinic | N=103 | Had to contact the clinic to get an appointment | Sent a standard appointment letter |
| Huws (30), 1992 | U.K.; marital and sexual difficulties clinic | N=200; mean age, 41.7; females, 23%; males, 53%; couples, 25% | Had to return a completed questionnaire to receive an appointment | Sent a letter with a fixed appointment |
| Kenwright and Marks (29), 2003 | ||||
| Study 1 | U.K.; specialist psychotherapy clinic | N=86; mean age, 35; females, 58%; males, 32% | Partial booking method; had to contact the clinic to get an appointment | Usual fixed appointment method with a stamped envelope for the reply slip |
| Study 2 | U.K.; specialist psychotherapy clinic | N=62; mean age, 30; females, 47%; males, 53% | Partial booking method; had to contact the clinic to get an appointment | Usual fixed appointment method |
| Telephone prompts and reminders | ||||
| Burgoyne et al. (28), 1983 | U.S.; psychiatric outpatient clinic in a university medical center | N=690 | Telephone prompt | Standard procedure |
| Crespo-Iglesias et al. (35), 2006 | Spain; hospital mental health outpatient service | N=214 | Telephone prompt <3 days before appointment | Standard procedure |
| Gariti et al. (37), 1995 | U.S.; substance abuse research center | N=80; mean age, 34.3; females, 29%; males, 71%; black, 80%; white, 20% | Telephone prompt | No contact |
| Hershorn and Rivas (24), 1993 | U.S.; community mental health center | N=99; mean age, 38 | Confirmation call from the clinicianb or confirmation call from the intake coordinator | No contact |
| Kluger and Karras (21), 1983 | U.S.; community mental health center | N=141; mean age, 32; females, 50%; males, 50%; black, 49%; white, 38%; other, 13% | Orientation statement (when the appointment was scheduled) and a telephone promptb, orientation statement only, or telephone prompt only | No contact |
| MacDonald et al. (36), 2000a | New Zealand; community mental health center | N=1,087; mean age, 35; females, 69%; males, 31% | Telephone reminder | Standard appointment letter |
| Orientation and reminder letters | ||||
| Kitcheman et al. (33), 2008 | U.K.; 7 psychiatric specialist clinics | N=764; mean age, 37; females, 48%; males, 52% | Orientation letter | Standard appointment letter |
| Rusius (31), 1995 | U.K.; hospital-based psychiatric outpatient clinic | N=144 | Reminder letter | Standard appointment letter |
| Swenson and Pekarik (8), 1988 | U.S.; community mental health center | N=150; mean age, 26; females, 55%; males, 45% | Letter prompt 1 day before the appointment, letter prompt 3 days before, orientation letter 1 day beforeb, or orientation letter 3 days before | No contact |
| Webster (32), 1992 | U.K.; mental health day center | N=74 | Information letter | Standard procedure |
| Witkower (34), 1981 | U.S.; publicly funded mental health center | N=101 | Contact letter and reminder letter | Standard procedure (intake evaluator contacted person via phone to arrange an appointment) |
| Accelerated intake | ||||
| Stark et al. (22), 1990 | U.S.; community-based substance abuse agency | N=117 | Same-day appointment offered and obstacles discussedb, same-day appointment and no discussion, ordiscussion about obstacles only | Appointment scheduled |
| Stasiewicz and Stalker (23), 1999 | U.S.; clinical research center, substance abuse clinic | N=128; mean age, 36; females, 37%; males, 63%; black, 26%; white, 67%; other, 7% | Appointment scheduled within 48 hoursb, a reminder phone call 24 hours before the appointment, or an appointment card and brochure | No contact (appointment scheduled within 5 days on average) |
| Psychodynamic questionnaire | ||||
| O’Loughlin (38), 1990 | U.K.; general hospital clinical psychology department | N=140 | Sent a psychodynamically formulated questionnaire and personalized letter | Sent an appointment card only |
| Soutter and Garelick (39), 1990 | U.K.; consultant psychotherapist practice | N=243 | Sent a psychodynamically formulated questionnaire | No questionnaire sent |
| Other | ||||
| Ersner-Hershfield et al. (40), 1979 | U.S.; community mental health center, psychotherapy service | N=55 | Choice of therapist style when booking the appointment | Appointment with the next available therapist |
| Sheeran et al. (26), 2007 | U.K.; public-sector psychotherapy service | N=476; females, 67%; males, 33% | Implementation intention inductionc and a questionnaire | Sent an appointment and a questionnaire |
a
Data were unavailable for 111 participants (group allocation not reported).
b
Intervention arm used in further analyses
c
Asking clients to formulate an “if-then” plan to deal with ambivalence toward attending
Risk of bias assessment
All the included studies were assessed for risk of bias (Table 2). Many of the studies were brief, with little information to assess the risk. For one study, the authors provided additional details (26). A substantial proportion of the studies were rated as having a high risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation and allocation concealment (selection bias), as well as incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Most of the studies did not address blinding procedures (detection and performance bias), and little information was available (for example, from study protocols) to enable the assessment of selective outcome reporting (reporting bias).
| Study | Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Other bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baggaley (27), 1993 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| Burgoyne et al. (28), 1983 | Low | High | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | Low |
| Crespo-Iglesias et al. (35), 2006 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Ersner-Hershfield et al. (40), 1979 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | Low |
| Gariti et al. (37), 1995 | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | Unclear | Low |
| Hershorn and Rivas (24), 1993 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | High | Low |
| Huws (30), 1992 | High | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| Kenwright and Marks (29), 2003 (studies 1 and 2) | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low |
| Kitcheman et al. (33), 2008 | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Low |
| Kluger and Karras (21), 1983 | Low | High | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| MacDonald et al. (36), 2000 | High | High | Unclear | Unclear | High | Unclear | High |
| O’Loughlin (38), 1990 | High | High | High | High | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Rusius (31), 1995 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| Sheeran et al. (26), 2007 | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Soutter and Garelick (39), 1999 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| Stark et al. (22), 1990 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | Unclear | Low |
| Stasiewicz and Stalker (23), 1999 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| Swenson and Pekarik (8), 1988 | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low |
| Webster (32), 1992 | High | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Witkower (34), 1981 | High | High | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
a
Risk was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (20).
Effects of the intervention
Sixteen of the 21 studies (3,673 participants) were included in the quantitative analyses. Five studies were excluded from the analyses because they reported only the proportion of participants who did not attend the initial appointment (8,21,24,27,28). The results are presented in Table 3.
| Study | Intervention | Control | Effect | Heterogeneitya | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attended (N) | Total (N) | Attended (N) | Total (N) | RR | 95% CI | χ2 | df | p | I2 (%) | |
| Opt-in systems | 4.47 | 2 | .11 | 55 | ||||||
| Huws (30), 1992 | 45 | 100 | 48 | 100 | .94 | .70–1.26 | ||||
| Kenwright and Marks (29), 2003 | ||||||||||
| Study 1 | 35 | 44 | 28 | 42 | 1.64 | 1.06–2.55 | ||||
| Study 2 | 23 | 31 | 14 | 31 | 1.19 | .92–1.55 | ||||
| Orientation and reminder letters | 4.30 | 3 | .23 | 30 | ||||||
| Kitcheman et al. (33), 2008 | 288 | 388 | 255 | 376 | 1.09 | 1.00–1.20 | ||||
| Rusius (31), 1995 | 41 | 67 | 39 | 77 | 1.21 | .90–1.62 | ||||
| Webster (32), 1992 | 32 | 39 | 20 | 35 | 1.44 | 1.04–1.98 | ||||
| Witkower (34), 1981 | 25 | 47 | 32 | 54 | .90 | .63–1.27 | ||||
| Telephone prompts and reminders | 51.50 | 2 | .001 | 96 | ||||||
| Crespo-Iglesias (35), 2006 | 88 | 106 | 71 | 108 | 1.26 | 1.07–1.48 | ||||
| Gariti et al. (37), 1995 | 20 | 40 | 21 | 40 | .95 | .62–1.46 | ||||
| MacDonald et al. (36), 2000 | 230 | 480 | 375 | 495 | .63 | .57–.70 | ||||
| Accelerated intake | .78 | 1 | .38 | 0 | ||||||
| Stark et al. (22), 1990 | 19 | 29 | 9 | 22 | 1.60 | .91–2.82 | ||||
| Stasiewicz and Stalker (23), 1999 | 20 | 30 | 17 | 30 | 1.18 | .79–1.76 | ||||
| Psychodynamic questionnaire | 4.02 | 1 | .04 | 75 | ||||||
| O’Loughlin (38), 1990 | 55 | 62 | 22 | 28 | 1.13 | .91–1.40 | ||||
| Soutter and Garelick (39), 1999 | 74 | 102 | 115 | 138 | .87 | .76–1.00 | ||||
| Other | ||||||||||
| Ersner-Hershfield et al. (40), 1979 | 17 | 24 | 14 | 31 | 1.57 | .99–2.50 | ||||
| Sheeran et al. (26), 2007 | 156 | 236 | 121 | 240 | 1.31 | 1.12–1.53 | ||||
a
Cochrane’s Q (chi square statistic) examined whether differences across studies were statistically significant (p value set at .1). The I2 statistic indicates the percentage of variation across studies that is likely to be due to heterogeneity.
Meta-analyses were not implemented in the analysis because, even though the accelerated-intake studies and the studies that used orientation and reminder letters fulfilled criteria for sufficiently low statistical heterogeneity, it was decided that the high clinical and methodological heterogeneity (for example, variation across settings and time periods) made pooling the effect sizes unjustified (Table 3). [A figure presenting forest plots of the studies is available in the online data supplement.] Narrative synthesis was thus implemented for all intervention groups. Because this method was used, separate subgroup or sensitivity analyses were not possible, but the similarities and differences between the studies were discussed in the context of the main analysis.
Opt-in systems did not appear to have a significant beneficial effect, although one study from the United Kingdom reported a significant increase in initial appointment attendance (RR=1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.06–2.55) (29), and one study from the same psychotherapy setting showed a nonsignificant result in the same direction (29). Both studies had a relatively low risk of bias (Table 2). One older study from a U.S. clinic for people with marital and sexual difficulties showed a statistically nonsignificant finding in the direction of decreasing initial appointment attendance (30). This study’s risk of bias was mainly unclear.
Orientation and reminder letters appear to show some promise in increasing initial appointment attendance. Three of four studies indicated a beneficial effect, which ranged from a 9% to 44% increase in attendance (31–33). The three studies were conducted in the United Kingdom. However, only one, with mainly an unclear risk of bias, reported findings that were statistically significant (32); the findings of another study, with mainly a low risk of bias, showed a trend toward significance (33). Notably, one older unpublished U.S. study did not indicate any benefit of an orientation and reminder letters (34). This study also had mostly an unclear risk of bias. It should be noted that these studies were conducted over a span of more than 30 years, which may account for the variation in findings between studies.
Telephone prompts do not appear to significantly increase initial appointment attendance. The results were highly variable across studies, with one Spanish study reporting that the intervention significantly increased attendance by 26% (35). For the findings of two studies, intention-to-treat analyses indicated that telephone prompts and telephone reminders may decrease attendance. Findings in one of these studies, from New Zealand, were significant and reported a decrease of 37% in attendance after an intention-to-treat analysis was conducted (36). This study also had a high risk of bias. The third study, from the United States, which was also the only one in this group that was conducted in a substance abuse service, reported a 5% decrease in attendance, but the difference was not statistically significant and the risk of bias was mainly unclear (37).
Accelerated intake may also be a beneficial method of increasing initial attendance. Two small studies both indicated a beneficial effect, ranging from an increase of 18% to 60% in initial appointment attendance (22,23). However, these increases were not statistically significant. Both studies were conducted in U.S. substance abuse settings and had mainly an unclear risk of bias.
In two U.K. studies participants were sent a psychodynamically formulated questionnaire before their first psychotherapy appointment. One found a nonsignificant effect in the direction of increasing attendance (38), and the other showed an effect in the opposite direction that was nearly significant (39). Both studies had an unclear or high risk of bias on most of the domains.
Studies of interventions in the “other” category reported statistically significant or nearly significant results (Table 3). Findings of a U.S. study that tested the effect of clients being able to choose the therapist’s style showed a trend toward significance (RR=1.57, CI=.99−2.50) (40). This study had mainly an unclear risk of bias. A fairly recent U.K. study that tested sending participants an implementation intention exercise found that initial appointment attendance at a psychotherapy service increased by about a third, and the result was statistically significant (26). This study had a low risk of bias across domains.
Five studies reported the number of cancelled initial appointments (29,30,33,38). No differences were found in the number of cancelled appointments between the control and intervention groups in any of these studies. Furthermore, two studies reported the number of rescheduled initial appointments (31,38). Neither study showed a significant difference between the groups.
Only one study, which used an orientation letter, reported the number of people who completed treatment, as well as rate of subsequent hospitalizations and use of the Mental Health Act (involuntary commitment) (33). The intervention had no significant effect on any of these outcomes. It should be noted that during the follow-up period, very few people in this study were reported to be hospitalized, and no one in the sample was admitted under the Mental Health Act.
Theory
Only three studies explicitly specified using a model to guide the design of the intervention (22,26,34). Sheeran and colleagues (26) used the theory of planned behavior and Witkower (34) alluded to the crisis theory. Stark and colleagues (22) also mentioned a model by Miller (41), which emphasized that clients’ current motivation—more than their stable dispositional traits—was as an important determinant of treatment engagement. The other studies did not explicitly state a model in the introduction or discuss the mechanisms behind attending initial appointments as a basis for their chosen intervention.
Discussion
Summary of findings
The analyses indicate that orientation and reminder letters may increase initial appointment attendance in mental health services. In contrast, the use of telephone prompts does not appear to be significantly more effective than standard procedure. However, the results were mixed, with significant results in both directions (35–37). Similarly, opt-in systems did not increase initial appointment attendance, with one exception reported in a study with a relatively low risk of bias (29). Accelerated intake was also not found to be more effective than standard intake procedures in the two small studies reviewed (22,23). In addition, sending a psychodynamically formulated questionnaire to the participants before the first therapy session appears to have had no significant effect (38), and one study of such an intervention indicated decreased attendance, with a trend toward significance (RR=.87, CI=.76−1.00) (39).
Although the effect was not statistically significant, a choice of therapist style showed some promise as a means of increasing attendance (RR=1.57, CI=.99−2.50) (40). Larger and more rigorously controlled studies are needed to clarify this finding. Moreover, it should be noted that this intervention is directly applicable only in a psychotherapy setting.
One study that used an implementation intention exercise administered by mail found that the intervention increased the likelihood of initial appointment attendance by approximately a third (26). Although this is a promising finding from a study with a low risk of bias (Table 2), further research is needed to investigate whether this type of intervention can be effective across settings.
Only a few studies reported a secondary outcome. The analyses suggest that interventions to increase initial appointment attendance do not have a substantial effect on the number of cancelled or rescheduled appointments. For the other outcomes, data were available only for isolated studies or not at all.
Overall applicability of evidence
The findings of this review suggest that robust evidence is lacking for interventions to increase initial appointment attendance. It should be noted that the most common types of interventions identified in this review (opt-in systems, telephone prompts, orientation and reminder letters, and accelerated intake) showed either small significant or nonsignificant results. However, many of these interventions are low cost and logistically simple. Even small improvements in attendance can prove to be cost-effective. More research is needed. Individual studies that used more novel methods for increasing attendance (for example, an implementation intention induction) show some promise but require replication.
The findings of this review suggest that health care providers should be cautious when investing in these methods because they may not yield substantial benefits. However, some interventions may prove beneficial in decreasing nonattendance at initial appointments and thus free up administrative and clinical resources. For example, appointments would not need to be scheduled for people who would be likely to not attend (for example, opt-in systems). However, such interventions would not address the problems outlined at the beginning of this article, which are related to increasing access to services for those who need them. For this reason, it is crucial that evaluations of these interventions use appropriate outcome measures.
Most of the studies appear to have been designed with no explicit reference to a theory or a model. Therefore, they are of limited utility to research investigating causal factors underlying initial appointment attendance. A model is arguably also crucial when complex interventions are developed and evaluated (42,43).
The broader help-seeking literature would suggest that factors such as stigma (44) and fears regarding treatment (45) are important determinants of propensity to seek help for mental health problems. In addition, it has been argued that increased control over the process of accessing help may be crucial in order to help people reach the goals that are important to them (46). Furthermore, these obstacles and facilitators should be placed in the context of societal and political influences (47). Future interventions could focus on all these aspects.
Strengths and limitations
A strength of this review was that considerable effort was made to counter publication bias by identifying unpublished studies and non–English-language reports. Moreover, compared with previous literature reviews, this review showed that beneficial effects often do not hold when an intention-to-treat analysis is performed and when initial appointment attendance, rather than nonattendance, is used as an outcome (9,11,15). This review also thoroughly evaluated the risk of bias in the studies included, which indicated that the quality of current evidence for each intervention type is generally poor to modest and that better-quality research is necessary. However, a few trials of higher quality were identified, and it is important to acknowledge them and contrast them with the lower-quality studies so that their findings can be used to guide policy or future research.
The number of studies of each intervention type was relatively small. Thus robust evidence in favor or against these interventions could not be obtained. Furthermore, many studies were relatively small, and some included several intervention arms, which led to low power (especially when intention-to-treat analyses were performed). A further limitation with regard to pooling different studies is that the comparison groups differed somewhat across the studies. It also important to note that the studies reviewed span nearly four decades and include participants with different types of mental health and substance abuse problems. Although successful randomization should control for differences within the study, the reasons for low attendance may vary over time and across clients. Generalizing across findings should thus be done with caution. To acknowledge this variation, we implemented a narrative synthesis rather than a meta-analysis. However, this method of analysis, along with the small number of studies, meant that the variance could not be investigated further in subgroup analyses.
Many of the reports were also brief and provided little detail about methods. Attempts to contact the authors for further information were often not successful. Four studies could not be assessed for eligibility because they were unavailable (16–19). Outcomes were not extracted for five studies (8,21,24,27,28). The results of this review may have been different if appropriate outcomes had been obtained for these studies.
Conclusions
The review found no conclusive experimental evidence of the effectiveness of telephone prompts, accelerated intake, psychodynamic questionnaires, and opt-in systems in increasing attendance at initial appointments. Orientation and reminder letters appeared to increase attendance, and this approach may be an attractive alternative for many services because it is simple and relatively low cost. However, because the effect appears to be small, a cost-effectiveness study is recommended. In addition, research to identify mechanisms that influence first appointment nonattendance could help inform development of more effective orientation and reminder letters.
Giving patients more control over the process through procedures such as opt-in systems or therapist choice is in line with the current policy of promoting patient preferences and meeting their needs (48) and may therefore be beneficial from a health policy perspective, even though such interventions may not have a significant effect on attendance. Furthermore, more attention to the societal and political context in which these interventions are implemented is crucial to their effectiveness. Current political and financial policies should thus be taken into account, as well as the extent of stigma in society (47).
More methodologically robust studies are needed to conclusively determine the effectiveness of any of the identified interventions. An important methodological point highlighted in this review is that it is crucial to define—and sufficiently describe—outcomes used in evaluations of such interventions. In addition, more attention should be paid to identifying important causal factors and psychological processes behind the phenomenon of attendance; interventions should be designed and evaluated with explicit reference to these factors and processes. Because many of the conventional methods do not appear to be very effective, the findings of this review suggest that it may be the time for more novel approaches.
Acknowledgments and disclosures
Ms. Aschan is funded by an Excellence Studentship grant from the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London. Dr. Clement is funded by the National Institute for Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (“Improving Mental Health Outcomes by Reducing Stigma and Discrimination”; RP-PG-0606-1053).
The authors report no competing interests.
Supplementary Material
Supplemental Material (1249_ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 189.63 KB
References
1.
McGlade KJ, Bradley T, Murphy GJ, et al.: Referrals to hospital by general practitioners: a study of compliance and communication. British Medical Journal 297:1246–1248, 1988
2.
Jones DT: A survey of hospital outpatient referral rates, Wales. British Medical Journal 295:734–736, 1987
3.
Livianos-Aldana L, Vila-Gómez M, Rojo-Moreno L, et al.: Patients who miss initial appointments in community psychiatry: a Spanish community analysis. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 45:198–206, 1999
4.
Department of Health Hospital Activity Statistics Database: Quarter 4, 2004–2005 [database on the Internet], 2005. Available at www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data_requests/outpatient_attendances.htm. Accessed Aug 28, 2011
5.
Sparr LF, Moffitt MC, Ward MF: Missed psychiatric appointments: who returns and who stays away. American Journal of Psychiatry 150:801–805, 1993
6.
Kruse GR, Rohland BM, Wu X: Factors associated with missed first appointments at a psychiatric clinic. Psychiatric Services 53:1173–1176, 2002
7.
Turner AJ, Vernon JC: Prompts to increase attendance in a community mental-health center. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 9:141–145, 1976
8.
Swenson TR, Pekarik G: Interventions for reducing missed initial appointments at a community mental health center. Community Mental Health Journal 24:205–218, 1988
9.
Hawker DS: Increasing initial attendance at mental health out-patient clinics: opt-in systems and other interventions. Psychiatric Bulletin 31:179–182, 2007
10.
Ogrodniczuk JS, Joyce AS, Piper WE: Strategies for reducing patient-initiated premature termination of psychotherapy. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 13:57–70, 2005
11.
Henderson R: Encouraging attendance at outpatient appointments: can we do more? Scottish Medical Journal 53:9–12, 2008
12.
Rowett M, Reda S, Makhoul S: Prompts to encourage appointment attendance for people with serious mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin 36:910–911, 2010
13.
Schauman O, Clement S: Interventions to increase initial appointment attendance within mental health services. Heslington, United Kingdom, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, 2011. Available at www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42011001348
14.
Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JNV, et al.: How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94:130–136, 2006
15.
Lefforge NL, Donohue B, Strada MJ: Improving session attendance in mental health and substance abuse settings: a review of controlled studies. Behavior Therapy 38:1–22, 2007
16.
Forman P: The effect of exposure to a pamphlet about the therapeutic process on attendance of adults at an urban community mental health center. Dissertation Abstracts International 44:12-A, 1984
17.
Reese BD: Reducing the pretherapy dropout rate at a community mental health center: A pilot program. Dissertation Abstracts International 39:4593-B, 1979
18.
Rice NM: A Brief Didactic Intervention for Emotion Regulation in College Students. Doctoral thesis. Reno, Nev, University of Nevada, Department of Psychology, 2004
19.
Rossi E: Effect of a simple strategy on attendance and satisfaction with medication clinic services in the chronically mentally ill. Dissertation Abstracts International 55:7-A, 1995
20.
Higgins J, Altman D: Assessing risk of bias in included studies; in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. Chichester, United Kingdom, Wiley, 2008
21.
Kluger MP, Karras A: Strategies for reducing missed initial appointments in a community mental health center. Community Mental Health Journal 19:137–143, 1983
22.
Stark MJ, Campbell BK, Brinkerhoff CV: “Hello, may we help you?” A study of attrition prevention at the time of the first phone contact with substance-abusing clients. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 16:67–76, 1990
23.
Stasiewicz PR, Stalker R: A comparison of three “interventions” on pretreatment dropout rates in an outpatient substance abuse clinic. Addictive Behaviors 24:579–582, 1999
24.
Hershorn M, Rivas A: The effectiveness of pretreatment engagement: stability and reachability of attenders versus nonattenders for community mental health intakes. Journal of Community Psychology 21:21–25, 1993
25.
Higgins J, Green S (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, United Kingdom, Wiley, 2011
26.
Sheeran P, Aubrey R, Kellett S: Increasing attendance for psychotherapy: implementation intentions and the self-regulation of attendance-related negative affect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75:853–863, 2007
27.
Baggaley M: Improving the attendance for new psychiatric out-patient referrals. Psychiatric Bulletin 17:347–348, 1993
28.
Burgoyne RW, Acosta FX, Yamamoto J: Telephone prompting to increase attendance at a psychiatric outpatient clinic. American Journal of Psychiatry 140:345–347, 1983
29.
Kenwright M, Marks IM: Improving first attendance for cognitive behaviour therapy by a partial booking appointment method: two randomised controlled trials. Journal of Mental Health 12:385–392, 2003
30.
Huws R: Non-attendances at a marital and sexual difficulties clinic: a controlled intervention study. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 38:304–308, 1992
31.
Rusius CW: Improving out-patient attendance using postal appointment reminders. Psychiatric Bulletin 19:291–292, 1995
32.
Webster A: The effect of pre-assessment information on clients’ satisfaction, expectations and attendance at a mental health day centre. British Journal of Medical Psychology 65:89–93, 1992
33.
Kitcheman J, Adams CE, Pervaiz A, et al.: Does an encouraging letter encourage attendance at psychiatric out-patient clinics? The Leeds PROMPTS randomized study. Psychological Medicine 38:717–723, 2008
34.
Witkower AB: Influence of intake procedures on applicant attrition at a community mental health center. Dissertation Abstracts International 41:4697–4698, 1981
35.
Crespo-Iglesias J, Garcia AG, Miguelez BS, et al.: Improvement of the attendance to the first psychiatric appointments after telephone reminder [in Spanish]. Anales de Psiquiatría 22:95–101, 2006
36.
MacDonald J, Brown N, Ellis P: Using telephone prompts to improve initial attendance at a community mental health center. Psychiatric Services 51:812–814, 2000
37.
Gariti P, Alterman AI, Holub-Beyer E, et al.: Effects of an appointment reminder call on patient show rates. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 12:207–212, 1995
38.
O’Loughlin S: The effect of a pre-appointment questionnaire on clinical psychologist attendance rates. British Journal of Medical Psychology 63:5–9, 1990
39.
Soutter A, Garelick A: What is the role of pre-assessment questionnaires in psychotherapy? Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 13:245–258, 1999
40.
Ersner-Hershfield S, Abramowitz SI, Baren J: Incentive effects of choosing a therapist. Journal of Clinical Psychology 35:404–406, 1979
41.
Miller WR: Motivation for treatment: a review with special emphasis on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin 98:84–107, 1985
42.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al.: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal 337:1655, 2008
43.
Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, et al.: Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal 321:694–696, 2000
44.
Barney LJ, Griffiths KM, Jorm AF, et al.: Stigma about depression and its impact on help-seeking intentions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 40:51–54, 2006
45.
Vogel DL, Wester SR, Larson LM: Avoidance of counseling: psychological factors that inhibit seeking help. Journal of Counseling and Development 85:410–422, 2007
46.
Schauman O, Mansell W: Processes underlying ambivalence in help-seeking: the loss of valued control model. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 19:107–124, 2012
47.
Grazier KL, Mowbray CT, Holter MC: Rationing psychosocial treatments in the United States. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 28:545–560, 2005
48.
Principles and Values That Guide the NHS. London, National Health Service, 2013. Available at www.nhs.uk/aboutnhs/CorePrinciples/Pages/NHSCorePrinciples.aspx
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover:
History
Published online: 1 December 2013
Published in print: December 2013
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).