This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (12 DEC 2012)

Intervention Protocol

Computer-generated paper reminders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

  1. Paul Gorman1,*,
  2. Craig Redfern2,
  3. Teng Liaw3,
  4. Susan Carson4,
  5. Jeremy Wyatt5,
  6. Rachel Rowe6,
  7. Jeremy Grimshaw7

Editorial Group: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group

Published Online: 27 JUL 1998

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001175


How to Cite

Gorman P, Redfern C, Liaw T, Carson S, Wyatt J, Rowe R, Grimshaw J. Computer-generated paper reminders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001175. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001175.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Oregon Health Science University, Biomedical Information Communication Centre, Portland, Oregon, USA

  2. 2

    Providence Portland Medical Centre, Portland, Oregon, USA

  3. 3

    University of Melbourne, Department of Public Health & Community Medicine, Carlton, Victoria, Australia

  4. 4

    Oregon Health Sciences University, Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, Oregon, USA

  5. 5

    School of Public Policy, London, WC1E 7HN, UK

  6. 6

    Institute of Health Sciences, ICRF Medical Statistics Group, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK

  7. 7

    Ottawa Health Research Institute, Director, Clinical Epidemiology Programme, Ottawa, ON, Canada

*Paul Gorman, Biomedical Information Communication Centre, Oregon Health Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon, 97201-3098, USA. gormanp@ohsu.edu.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 27 JUL 1998

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (12 DEC 2012)

 

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

In this review we examine the effectiveness of computer-generated paper reminders to health care professionals and address the following primary hypotheses:

1. Computer-generated paper reminders are effective compared with no intervention.
2. Computer-generated paper reminders are effective compared with other interventions.
3. Computer-generated paper reminders combined with other interventions are effective compared with no intervention.
4. Computer-generated paper reminders combined with other interventions are effective compared with manual reminders alone.

We also address the following secondary hypotheses:

Type of reminder:

5. Reminders that include some individual patient-specific information are more effective than generic reminders.
6. Reminders that indicate a response should be recorded or given are more effective than reminders that do not require a response.

Development of reminder:

7. Reminders developed with the involvement of target clinicians are more effective than reminders developed without their participation.

Delivery of reminder:

8. Reminders delivered by or with the knowledge of the target clinician's colleagues or patients are more effective than reminders delivered by other means.

Content of reminder:

9. Reminders that offer explicit advice on patient management are more effective than reminders that offer general information only, for example about prevalence of a disease.
10. Reminders that include an explanation of their content or advice are more effective than reminders that do not include this.
11. Reminders that are explicitly from or justified by reference to an influential source are more effective than reminders from another source. An influential source is a person or body likely to be perceived as credible by the target clinician.

Behaviour targeted by intervention:

12. Reminders will vary in effectiveness systematically according to the targeted activity.