Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Clinical Trial

Comparison of three methods of recalling patients for influenza vaccination

I. McDowell, C. Newell and W. Rosser
CMAJ November 01, 1986 135 (9) 991-997;
I. McDowell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Newell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Rosser
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Despite recommendations supporting annual influenza vaccination for people aged 65 years or older, vaccination rates remain low. Several studies have evaluated the effect of sending mailed reminders, but few have compared alternative ways of reminding patients to receive the vaccine. In a randomized trial of 939 patients aged 65 years or older in four family practices carried out between Oct. 23 and Dec. 31, 1984, we compared three ways of reminding elderly patients to receive the vaccine: personal reminder by the physician, telephone reminder by the nurse and reminder by letter. The vaccination rates for the three groups were 22.9%, 37% and 35.1% respectively. No reminder was issued to a control group, and the rate was 9.8%. Some patients could not be reached by telephone, and some did not see the physician during the specified time. Among the patients whom the nurse actually contacted, the vaccination rate was 43.5%; the rate for patients whom the doctor actually saw was 45.1%. Overall, a telephone reminder by the nurse was the most effective method, and at an hourly salary of $16 or less this method would also be the most cost-effective. The reminders used in this study were automatically generated from a computerized medical record system. The study shows how a computerized system can be used to identify patients for whom preventive procedures are due.

  • Copyright © 1986 by Canadian Medical Association
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 135, Issue 9
1 Nov 1986
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of three methods of recalling patients for influenza vaccination
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Comparison of three methods of recalling patients for influenza vaccination
I. McDowell, C. Newell, W. Rosser
CMAJ Nov 1986, 135 (9) 991-997;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Comparison of three methods of recalling patients for influenza vaccination
I. McDowell, C. Newell, W. Rosser
CMAJ Nov 1986, 135 (9) 991-997;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A Meta-Analysis of Influenza Vaccination Following Correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19
  • Effectiveness and Net Cost of Reminder/Recall for Adolescent Immunizations
  • Impact of EHR-Based Clinical Decision Support on Adherence to Guidelines for Patients on NSAIDs: A Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy and safety of finasteride therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: results of a 2-year randomized controlled trial (the PROSPECT study). PROscar Safety Plus Efficacy Canadian Two year Study
  • Canadian atrial fibrillation anticoagulation study: were the patients subsequently treated with warfarin? Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation Study Group
  • Factors determining compliance with screening mammography
Show more Clinical Trial

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire