MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416870515 · doi:10.1097/upj.0000000000000936

Reducing Missed Outpatient Appointments in Pediatric Urology: A Pre-Post Analysis of an Automated Text Reminder Intervention

2025· article· en· W4416870515 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Chun, Christine Do, Edward Diaz, Andy Chang, Evalynn Vasquez, Roger E. De Filippo, Joan Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueUrology Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Tertiary careOutpatient clinicPatient carePrimary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Missed outpatient appointments, or no-shows, decrease clinic efficiency and are a major challenge in delivering high-quality, cost-effective care. Given the ubiquity of smartphones, automated text reminders are an attractive tool to promote appointment adherence. Thus, our study aims to describe the prevalence and predictors of pediatric urology clinic appointment no-shows and the effectiveness of an automated text reminder system. METHODS: We surveyed all in-person and telehealth pediatric urology clinic appointments within our institution's health system from January to December 2023. Ethnicity, native language, need for interpreter, clinic site, visit type, appointment time, and insurance type were measured. The primary outcome was appointment no-show rate. Secondary outcomes were appointment cancellation and rescheduling rates. Odds for no-show, cancellation, and rescheduling were compared between the preintervention and postintervention groups. A univariate and multinomial logistic regression model was used with attended visits as the reference for the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 15,315 outpatient urology clinic appointments were scheduled; 60.0% attended, 24.1% rescheduled, 9.4% cancelled, and 6.5% missed/no-show. Implementation of text reminders was associated with more visit cancellations (odds ratio [OR] 1.20 [1.01-1.42]), but fewer rescheduled visits (OR 0.78 [0.70-0.86]) and no-shows (OR 0.72 [0.60-0.85]). Spanish language, follow-up visits, and nurse visits were less likely to no-show (OR 0.66 [0.54-0.79], 0.80 [0.68-0.93], and 0.15 [0.06-0.37], respectively). Patients with public-payer insurance or appointments before 10:00 am had a higher odds of no-show (OR 3.38 [1.95-5.86] and 1.25 [1.04-1.51], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: An automated text reminder system is effective in reducing no-show rates for pediatric urology clinic appointments in an academic tertiary care setting.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.424 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrology PracticeSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207