Increasing Medicaid child health screenings: the effectiveness of mailed pamphlets, phone calls, and home visits.

Selby-Harrington, Maija L.; Sorenson, James R.; Quade, Dana; Stearns, Sally C.; Tesh, Anita S.; Donat, Patricia L. N.

doi:10.2105/ajph.85.10.1412

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 0% non-participation rate was only achieved in 11 out of 64 studies (17%). [104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] Seven of the 65 included studies (11%) had non-participation rates of 50% or more, which could have consequences for the external validity of their results. [115][116][117][118][119][120][121] Where nonparticipation rates were high it is possible that those who participated in the study were more agreeable to attending screening or differed in a number of other ways from those who did not participate.…”

Section: Non-participation Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-three studies had follow-up rates of 100%. 68,[71][72][73]76,85,87,91,94,96,101,102,104,106,107,109,110,112,114,119,121,123,124 Those studies that had a high follow-up rate tended to use smaller sample sizes; thus they lacked power and may not be very representative of the target population. Nine of the studies that had follow-up rates of 95% or more, however, included less than 300 participants.…”

Section: Assessment Of Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

Jepson¹,

Clegg²,

Forbes³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

234

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Population Screening Panel and funded as project number 95/14/01. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

show abstract

Section: Non-participation Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessment Of Determinantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

Jepson¹,

Clegg²,

Forbes³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

234

282

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Use of EPSDT Services by Medicaid Children purpose was to motivate parents to seek EPSDT visits for their children (Oda, Heilbron, and Taylor 1995;Selby-Harrington et al 1995).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of EPSDT and Other Health Care Services by Children Enrolled in Medicaid: The Impact of OBRA'89

Gavin

Adams

Herz³

et al. 1998

Milbank Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To increase the participation of Medicaid children in the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program and to improve their health, Congress included several provisions in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA’89) that addressed problematic program features. The impact of these provisions on children's health service use was investigated in a study funded by the Health Care Financing Administration. After conducting site visits to four states, the authors analyzed claims data for the children residing there and found evidence that, in 1992, these states placed a higher priority on improving the effectiveness of EPSDT than they did before 1989. The states’ efforts to expand the EPSDT provider base and to enhance outreach and service provision were either directly or indirectly inspired by OBRA’89. The authors also found evidence of a significant impact on provider participation and caseloads and on children’s use of both preventive care and diagnostic and treatment services. However, the effects were modest in comparison to the size of the progress that is required.

show abstract

“…Selby-Harrington et al 13 found the use of a mailed pamphlet or letter, a phone call, or a home visit to be minimally effective in increasing well child screening visits. Laken and Ager 14 found that giving patients money as an incentive did not improve their prenatal clinic missed appointment rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The No-Show Rate in a High-Risk Obstetric Clinic

Campbell

Chez

Queen

et al. 2000

Journal of Women's Health & Gender-Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We wished to determine the reasons for an average missed appointment rate of 28% in a high-risk pregnancy clinic. Only 41% of the 261 women in the study group could be reached by telephone. The reasons included not having a phone, the phone had been disconnected, incorrect phone number on the chart, the patient had moved, and the patient did not respond to the answering machine message. The reasons for missing the appointment included lack of transportation, scheduling problems, overslept or forgot, presence of a sick child or relative, and lack of child care. The response of patients to assessing prenatal care may reflect their priority of medical care relative to other priorities associated with day-to-day existence. There may be a baseline missed appointment rate for prenatal care in lower socioeconomic populations of women. The commitment of personnel time and energy to attempt to modify the no-show rate should be reexamined.

show abstract

Increasing Medicaid child health screenings: the effectiveness of mailed pamphlets, phone calls, and home visits.

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.

The Use of EPSDT and Other Health Care Services by Children Enrolled in Medicaid: The Impact of OBRA'89

The No-Show Rate in a High-Risk Obstetric Clinic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About