Table 2

Population, intervention components and outcomes of the included studies considering reminder/recall interventions targeted at patients or clients.

ReferencesFirst author and yearPopulationVaccine(s)InequalitySample Size (intervention)Intervention componentsIntervention descriptionOutcome (effect measures and/or 95% CI)
Identification of those not UTD*Text message(s)Letter(s) to homeTelephone call(s)Outreach (eg, home visit)
70Kempe et al, 2013Children aged 19–35 monthsScheduleUrban/rural, not UTD55 173YYPractices participating received financial assistance. Up to three notifications sent.Increase in chances of becoming UTD if population based reminder system used (relative risk 1.23, CI 1.10 to 1.37)
71Kempe et al, 2015Children aged 19–35 monthsScheduleUrban/rural, not UTD18 235YYYCentralised reminder system involved either telephone and letters or letters alone. The practice-based system was variable at practice level, but involved calls or letters or both.Increase in children being UTD by 2.5% (p<0.001) using the centralised system (adj OR 1.31, CI 1.16 to 1.48)
72Atchison et al, 2013Children under 5 yearsScheduleUrban, low income, ethnicity32 practicesYYYYEscalating intervention comprising two letters, followed by a telephone call or home visit if no response.Significant increase in proportion UTD in the intervention group, but as a result of unexplained decreases in the non-intervention group.
73Dombkowski et al, 2014Children under 20 monthsScheduleUrban, not UTD10 175YYRecall notices issued at 7 and 19 months, with a reminder notice at 12 months.No difference in children at 7 or 12 months, but a significant difference of 7% (p<0.0001)| at 19 months.
74Lemstra et al, 2011Children not UTD with MMR at 24 monthsMMRDeprivation, low income629YYYHome visits targeted as a separate intervention in low-income areas.Significant increase in intervention areas (rate ratio 1.10, CI 1.08 to 1.12). Increase in home visit areas, but not significant due to small numbers.
75Cushon et al, 2012Children aged 14–20 monthsMMRDeprivation, low-income24 540YYYYIdentification of children not UTD, five telephone calls, letter home and then home visitation.Increases observed in across all study sites, including low-income areas. No significant difference observed in intervention sites, disparities remained.
76Stockwell et al, 2012 AChildren aged 7–22 monthsHibUrban, low income174YYYRepeated reminders delivered five times until vaccination status registered as UTD.Non-significant difference, possibly due to small sample size (n=174)
77Hofstetter et al, 2015 AChildren aged 9.5–10.5 months.MMRUrban, low income, ethnicity2054YParticipants either received reminders to schedule a vaccination appointment and then an appointment reminder; appointment reminder only; or usual care.No difference between arms except in children with no vaccination appointment booked, who received scheduling and appointment reminders (relative risk ratio 1.11, CI 1.00 to 1.24)
78Abbott et al, 2013Aboriginal children from birth to 20 monthsScheduleEthnicity505Reminder calendar given to parentsSignificant increase in vaccinations being given on time, once outliers were excluded.
76Stockwell et al, 2012 AAdolescents aged 11–18Td, Men4Urban, low income, ethnicity361 (195)YYRepeated reminders delivered five times until vaccination status registered as UTD.Significantly more adolescents in the intervention arm received missing vaccines at 4, 12 and 24 weeks (eg, at 12 weeks 26.7% vs 13.9% in controls, 12.8% difference CI 4.7% to 20.9%, p=0.003).
79Kharbanda et al, 2011Adolescent girls aged 9–20HPV (doses 2 and 3)Urban124YYUp to three weekly reminders that child due for an HPV dose.Intervention individuals were more likely than controls, contemporaneous (adjusted OR 2.03, CI 1.29 to 3.22 p=0.003) and historical (AOR 1.83, CI 1.23 to 2.71, p=0.002) to receive next HPV dose on time.
80Szilagyi et al, 2011Adolescents aged 11–15Pertussis, Men, HPVEthnicity7546YYYYReminder/recall and home visits undertaken by specialist vaccine system navigators.Becoming UTD for each vaccine was 12% to 16% higher in the intervention group (p<0.001), with 71% of the intervention group having received a reminder and 12% a home visit.
81Bar-Shain et al, 2015Adolescents aged 11–18HPV, MenC, TdapDeprivation, ethnicity3393YYYYDepending on availability of contact information either an email, text message or postcard was sent, repeated every 2 months for up to 12 months until UTD25.5% of adolescents in the study received at least one missing vaccine and response to the messaging reduced with each round. There were no differential effects by age, gender, insurance status or ethnicity.
82Brigham et al, 2012Adolescents aged 13–17.Tdap, Men4Urban, not UTD424YYCompared calls to parents to calls to parents and adolescents.Higher uptake in the parent and adolescent reminder group (adj OR 2.27,) however with a large CI (CI 1.00 to 5.18)
83Morris et al, 2015Adolescents aged 11–17.HPV, Men4, Tdap, VarUrban, deprivation5050YYYYSeries of 3 batches of reminders over 6 months, based on parents’ choice of message medium.Those who signed up for any method of reminder were more likely to become UTD than those who only received an enrolment phone call (24.6% vs 12.4%, p<0.001).
84Mantzari et al, 2015Adolescent girls aged 17–18HPV initiation and completionDeprivation1000YYYLetter with incentive offer sent to house, followed by series of text messages between the second and third dose.Increased uptake of the first dose in intervention individuals (OR 1.63). However, no differential impact by deprivation.
85Stockwell et al, 2012 BCYP aged 6 months to 18 years.InfluenzaLow income, ethnicity9213YSeries of five text messages with educational information.Higher proportion of CYP vaccinated in the intervention group (3.7% increase, CI 1.5% to 5.9%, p=0.001; relative risk ratio 1.09, CI 1.04 to 1.15), although overall rates remained low at around 40%
86Stockwell et al, 2015Children 6 months to 8 yearsInfluenzaLow income, ethnicity660YYThree arms: education vs conventional text plus letter, and usual care (letter only) control.Children in the educational group were significantly more likely to receive the second influenza dose (72.7%, p=0.003) compared to conventional text (66.7%) and postal reminder only (57.1%).
87Hofstetter et al, 2015 BCYP 6 months to 17 yearsInfluenzaLow income, ethnicity5462YYYThree arms: interactive educational message vs educational text vs usual care control.The interactive component of the messages had low uptake (1.0% using the service); however, slightly more in this arm were vaccinated than those who received the education only text (38.5% vs 35.3%, relative risk ratio 1.09 CI 1.00 to 1.19, p=0.04)
  • CYP, children and young people; HCW, healthcare workers, for example, doctors, nurses or allied health professionals; Hib, Haemophilus influenzae group b vaccination; HPV, human papillomavirus vaccination; Men4, quadrivalent meningococcal vaccination (A, C, W and Y); MenC, meningococcal group c vaccination; MMR, measles, mumps and rubella vaccination; Td, tetanus and diphtheria vaccination; Tdap, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis vaccination; UTD, up-to-date with all recommended vaccines for age; Var, varicella vaccination.