Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Apr 9;4(4):CD010763.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010763.pub2.

Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care

Rebecca Whear  1 , Joanna Thompson-Coon  1 , Morwenna Rogers  2 , Rebecca A Abbott  1 , Lindsey Anderson  3 , Obioha Ukoumunne  1 , Justin Matthews  2 , Victoria A Goodwin  1 , Simon Briscoe  1 , Mark Perry  4 , Ken Stein  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care

Rebecca Whear et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments.

Objectives: To assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019.

Selection criteria: We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

Main results: The 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear).

Authors' conclusions: Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

RW: has been involved in a related review that has been published.

JTC: has been involved in a related review that has been published.

MR: has been involved in a related review that has been published.

RA: none.

LA: none.

OU: none.

JM: none.

VG: implemented a patient‐initiated appointment system for people with rheumatoid arthritis at Plymouth Healthcare NHS Trust which has been published.

SB: none.

MP: implemented a patient‐initiated appointment system for people with rheumatoid arthritis at Plymouth Healthcare NHS Trust which has been published. Has been involved in a related review that has been published.

KS: has been involved in a related review that has been published.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, outcome: 1.1 Patient outcomes: anxiety (HADS lower score = better 0–21) (12–24 months).
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, outcome: 1.2 Patient outcomes: depression (HADS lower score = better 0–21) (9–24 months).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, outcome: 1.3 Patient outcomes: quality of life (12–18 months).
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 1 Patient outcomes: anxiety (HADS lower score = better 0–21) (12–24 months).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 2 Patient outcomes: depression (HADS lower score = better 0–21) (9–24months).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 3 Patient outcomes: quality of life (12–18 months).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 4 Rheumatoid arthritis: disease activity (VAS and DAS 12–24 months).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 5 Rheumatoid arthritis: self‐efficacy (ASES 12–24 months).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 6 Rheumatoid arthritis: pain (VAS 12–24 months).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 7 Rheumatoid arthritis: disability (HAQ 12–24 months).
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 8 Rheumatoid arthritis: patient satisfaction.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 11 Missed appointments.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Patient‐initiated appointment systems versus consultant‐led appointment systems, Outcome 12 Adverse event: relapses (12–60 months).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010763

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Berkhof 2014 {published data only}
    1. Berkhof F, Hesselink A, Uil S, Kerstjens H, Willem J. A 2 year follow up randomized pilot study of a care on demand system in COPD patients. European Respiratory Journal 2013;42(108):1163‐70.
    1. Berkhof F, Hesselink A, Vaessen D, Uil S, Kerstjens H, Berg J. The effect of an outpatient care on‐demand system on health status and costs in patients with COPD. A randomized trial. Respiratory Medicine 2014;108(8):1163‐70. - PubMed
Brown 2002 {published data only}
    1. Brown L, Payne S, Royle G. Patient initiated follow up of breast cancer. Psycho‐Oncology 2002;11:346‐55. - PubMed
Fredriksson 2016 {published data only}
    1. Fredriksson C, Ebbevi D, Waldheim E, Lindblad S, Ernestam S. Patient‐initiated appointments compared with standard outpatient care for rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled trial. RMD Open 2016;2:1‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Goodwin 2016 {published data only}
    1. Goodwin V, Paudyal P, Perry M, Day N, Hawton A, Gericke C, et al. Implementing a patient‐initiated review system for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective, comparative service evaluation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2016;22(3):439‐45. - PubMed
Gulliford 1997 {published data only}
    1. Gulliford T, Opomu M, Wilson E, Hanham I, Epstein R. Popularity of less frequent follow up for breast cancer in randomised study: initial findings from the hotline study. BMJ 1997;314:174‐81. - PMC - PubMed
Helgesen 2000 {published data only}
    1. Helgesen F, Andersson S, Gustafsson O, Varenhorst E, Goben B, Carnock S, et al. Follow‐up of prostate cancer patients by on‐demand contacts with a specialist nurse. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 2000;34:55‐61. - PubMed
Hewlett 2000 {published data only}
    1. Hewlett S. Patient initiated outpatient follow up in rheumatoid arthritis: six year randomised controlled trial. Health Economics 2004;13:1167‐80. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hewlett S, Kirwan J, Pollock J, Mitchell K, Hehir M, Blair P, et al. Patient initiated outpatient follow up in rheumatoid arthritis: six year randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2005;330:171‐5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hewlett S, Mitchell K, Haynes J, Paine T, Korendowych E, Kirwan J. Patient‐initiated hospital follow‐up for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000;39:990‐7. - PubMed
    1. Kirwan J, Mitchell K, Hewlett S, Hehir M, Pollock J, Memel D, et al. Clinical and psychological outcome from a randomized controlled trial of patient‐initiated direct‐access hospital follow‐up for rheumatoid arthritis extended to 4 years. Rheumatology 2003;42:422‐6. - PubMed
Jeppesen 2018 {published data only}
    1. Jeppesen MM, Jensen PT, Hansen DG, Christensen RD, Mogensen O. Patient‐initiated follow up affects fear of recurrence and healthcare use: a randomised trial in early‐stage endometrial cancer. BJOG 2018;125(13):1705‐14. - PubMed
Kennedy 2003 {published data only}
    1. Kennedy A, Nelson E, Reeves D, Richardson G, Roberts C, Robinson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a package comprising a patient‐orientated, evidence‐based self‐help guidebook and patient‐centred consultations on disease management and satisfaction in inflammatory bowel disease. Health Technology Assessment 2003;7(28):1‐126. - PubMed
    1. Kennedy AP, Nelson E, Reeves D, Richardson G, Roberts C, Robinson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost of a patient orientated self management approach to chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2004;53:1639‐45. - PMC - PubMed
Khoury 2018 {published data only}
    1. Khoury LR, Møller T, Zachariae C, Skov L. A prospective 52‐week randomized controlled trial of patient‐initiated care consultations for patients with psoriasis. British Journal of Dermatology 2018;179(2):301‐8. - PubMed
Kirshbaum 2017 {published data only}
    1. Kirshbaum MN, Dent J, Stephenson J, Topping AE, Allinson V, McCoy M, et al. Open access follow‐up care for early breast cancer: a randomised controlled quality of life analysis. European Journal of Cancer Care 2017;26(4):e:12577. - PMC - PubMed
Koinberg 2004 {published data only}
    1. Koinberg I, Engholm G, Genell A, Holmberg L. A health economic evaluation of follow‐up after breast cancer surgery: results of an RCT study. Acta Oncologica 2009;48:99‐104. - PubMed
    1. Koinberg I, Fridlund B, Engholm G, Holmberg L. Nurse‐led follow‐up on demand or by a physician after breast cancer surgery: a randomised study. European Oncology Nursing Society 2004;8:109‐17. - PubMed
Lahdensuo 1996 {published data only}
    1. Lahdensuo A, Haahtela T, Herrala J, Kava T, Kiviranta K, Kuusisto P, et al. Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year. BMJ 1996;312:748‐52. - PMC - PubMed
Primdahl 2012 {published data only}
    1. Primdahl J, Horn HC, Petersen R, Horslev‐Petersen K. Clinical and radiological outcome in outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis followed by medical, nursing or shared care‐a two year randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease 2013;71:92.
    1. Primdahl J, Sorensen J, Horn H, Petersen R, Horslev‐Petersen K. Shared care or nursing consultations as an alternative to rheumatologist follow‐up for rheumatoid arthritis outpatients with low disease activity – patient outcomes from a 2‐year, randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2014;73:357‐64. - PubMed
    1. Primdahl J, Wagner L, Holst R, Horslev‐Petersen K, AMBRA study group. The impact on self‐efficacy of different types of follow‐up care and disease status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis – a randomized trial. Patient Education and Counseling 2012;88:121‐8. - PubMed
    1. Sørensen J, Primdahl J, Horn H, Hørslev‐Petersen K. Shared care or nursing consultations as an alternative to rheumatologist follow‐up for rheumatoid arthritis outpatients with low disease activity: cost‐effectiveness based on a two‐year randomized trial. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 2015;44:13‐21. - PubMed
Robinson 2001 {published data only}
    1. Robinson A, Thompson D, Wilkin D, Roberts C. Guided self‐management and patient‐directed follow‐up of ulcerative colitis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001;358:976‐81. - PubMed
Sheppard 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sheppard C, Higgins B, Wise M, Yiangou C, Dubois D, Kilburn S. Breast cancer follow up: a randomised controlled trial comparing point of need access versus routine 6‐monthly clinical review. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2009;13:2‐8. - PubMed
Williams 2000 {published data only}
    1. Williams J, Cheung W, Russell I, Cohen D, Longo M, Lervy B. Open access follow up for inflammatory bowel disease: pragmatic randomised trial and cost effectiveness study. BMJ 2000;320:544‐8. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Adams 2009 {published data only}
    1. Adams N, Sands A. Patient versus practitioner‐initiated follow‐up for rheumatoid arthritis. European Journal of Pain 2009;13:S132.
Arnaud 1997 {published data only}
    1. Arnaud JP, Cervi C, Bergamaschi R, Tuech JJ. Contribution of cancerology follow‐up in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Journal de Chirurgie 1997;134:45‐50. - PubMed
Booth 2001 {published data only}
    1. Booth H, Goodburn A, Miller R, Scott G. Performance of a dedicated open access multidisciplinary tuberculosis (TB) clinic. Thorax 2001;56:57‐8.
Bourbeau 2003 {published data only}
    1. Bourbeau J, Julien M, Maltais F, Rouleau M, Beaupre A. Reduction of hospital utilisation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease‐specific self‐management intervention. Archives of Internal Medicine (Chicago, Ill. : 1908) 2003;163:585‐91. - PubMed
Coenen 2017 {published data only}
    1. Coenen S, Weyts E, Vermeire S, Ferrante M, Noman M, Ballet V, et al. Effects of introduction of an inflammatory bowel disease nurse position on the quality of delivered care. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2017;29(6):646‐50. - PubMed
Dent 2011 {published data only}
    1. Dent J, Topping A, Ferguson C, Stephenson J, McCoy M, Allinson V, et al. To follow up or not? A new model of supportive care for early breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011;1:S1.
Emery 2014a {published data only}
    1. Emery J, Schofield P, Jefford M, King M, Pirotta M, Hayne D, et al. The ProCare trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow‐up of men with prostate cancer. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014;10:157.
Emery 2014b {published data only}
    1. Emery J, Doorey J, Jefford M, King M, Pirotta M, Hayne D, et al. Protocol for the ProCare trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of shared care for follow‐up of men with prostate cancer. BMJ Open 2014;4:1‐10. - PMC - PubMed
Emery 2017 {published data only}
    1. Emery JD, Jefford M, King M, Hayne D, Martin A, Doorey J, et al. ProCare trial: a phase II randomized controlled trial of shared care for follow‐up of men with prostate cancer. BJU International 2017;119(3):381‐9. - PubMed
Fournier 2015 {published data only}
    1. Fournier J, Rainville A, Ingram J, Heale R. Implementation of an advanced access scheduling system in primary healthcare: one clinic's experience. Healthc Q 2015;18:60‐4. - PubMed
Hesselink 2011 {published data only}
    1. Hesselink A, Uil S, Kerstjens H, Berg JW. Effectiveness of an outpatient care on‐demand system in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled pilot study. Chest 2011;140:4.
Hewlett 2005 {published data only}
    1. Hewlett S. Implementation of patient‐initiated review in rheumatoid arthritis. Developing Practice Improving Care : Dissemination Series 2005;3:3.
Lawlor 2009 {published data only}
    1. Lawlor M, Kealy S, Agnew M, Korn B, Quinn J, Cassidy C, et al. Early discharge care with ongoing follow‐up support may reduce hospital readmissions in COPD. International Journal of COPD 2009;4:55‐60. - PMC - PubMed
McBain 2014a {published data only}
    1. McBain H, Shipley M, Moore S, Olaleye A, Hirani S, Newman SP. A self‐monitoring and patient‐initiated follow‐up service for patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology 2014;53:i77.
McBain 2014b {published data only}
    1. McBain H. The Development and Evaluation of a Self‐Monitoring and Patient‐Initiated Follow‐up Service for People with Rheumatoid or Psoriatic Arthritis on Methotrexate [PhD thesis]. London (UK): City University, 2014.
McBain 2015 {published data only}
    1. McBain H, Shipley M, Olaleye A, Moore S, Newman S. A patient‐initiated DMARD self‐monitoring service for people with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis on methotrexate: a randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease 2015; Vol. 75, issue 7:1343‐9. - PubMed
Ndosi 2011 {published data only}
    1. Ndosi M, Lewis M, Hale C, Quinn H, Ryan S, Emery P, et al. A randomised, controlled study of outcome and cost effectiveness for RA patients attending nurse‐led rheumatology clinics: study protocol of an ongoing nationwide multi‐centre study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2011;48:995‐1001. - PMC - PubMed
Paudyal 2012 {published data only}
    1. Paudyal P, Perry M, Child S, Gericke CA. Evaluation of a patient‐initiated review system in rheumatoid arthritis: an implementation trial protocol. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2012;13:120. - PMC - PubMed
Pope 2005 {published data only}
    1. Pope D, Tipler S, Kirwan J, Hewlett S. Implementing a patient‐led service for chronic conditions. Nursing times 2005;101:28‐31. - PubMed
Pope 2014 {published data only}
    1. Pope D. How can patients effectively shape rheumatology service delivery in secondary care?. Rheumatology 2014;53:i7.
Rogers 2004 {published data only}
    1. Rogers A, Kennedy A, Nelson E, Robinson A. Patients' experiences of an open access follow up arrangement in managing inflammatory bowel disease. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004;13:374‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Sands 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sands A, Adams N. A comparison of patient‐initiated versus conventional follow‐up for rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Pain Management 2009;1:391‐400.
Schougaard 2019 {published data only}
    1. Schougaard LM, Mejdahl CT, Petersen KH, Jessen A, Thurah A, Sidenius P, et al. Patient‐initiated versus fixed‐interval patient‐reported outcome‐based follow‐up in outpatients with epilepsy: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Journal of Patient‐Reported Outcomes 2019;3:61. - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

NCT02577224 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02577224. An RCT of a patient‐initiated treatment service for BEB and HFS. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02577224 (first received 8 May 2015).

Additional references

Car 2012
    1. Car J, Gurol‐Urganci I, Jongh T, Vodopivec‐Jamsek V, Atun R. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007458] - DOI - PubMed
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177‐188. - PubMed
DoH 2001
    1. Department of Health (DoH). The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century. webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandsta... (accessed 1 October 2013).
EPOC 2015
    1. Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Taxonomy, 2015. epoc.cochrane.org/epoc‐taxonomy (accessed 1 August 2019).
EPOC 2017a
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data collection form. EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. Available from epoc.cochrane.org/epoc‐specific‐resources‐review‐authors (accessed prior to 19 March 2020).
EPOC 2017b
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice, Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC worksheets for preparing a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. EPOC resources for review authors, 2017. Available from epoc.cochrane.org/epoc‐specific‐resources‐review‐authors (accessed prior to 19 March 2020).
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924‐6. - PMC - PubMed
HES 2010
    1. HES NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. Outpatient data: SHA and provider level analysis 2008‐09 and 2009‐10. www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalogue?productid=2805&q=%22hospital+outpat... (accessed December 2012).
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Kirwan 1991
    1. Kirwan J, Snow S. Which patients see a rheumatologist. British Journal of Rheumatology 1991;30:285‐7. - PubMed
Kitchen 2013
    1. Kitchen H, Bekker Hansen B, Abetz L, Højbjerre L, Strandberg‐Larsen M. Patient‐reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis: minimal important differences review. ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting; 2013 Oct 25‐30; San Diego (CA) 2013.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6(7):e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
Liu 2010
    1. Liu N, Ziya S, Kulkarni VG. Dynamic scheduling of outpatient appointments under patient no‐shows and cancellations. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 2010;12(2):347‐64.
National Audit Office 2014
    1. National Audit Office. NHS waiting times for elective care in England. www.nao.org.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2014/01/NHS‐waiting‐times‐for‐elective... (accessed May 2017).
NHS 2019
    1. NHS. The NHS long term plan, 2019. www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/publication/nhs‐long‐term‐plan/ (accessed 19 March 2020).
NRAS 2020
    1. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society. The DAS28 score. www.nras.org.uk/the‐das28‐score (accessed Feb 2020).
Nuffield 2011
    1. Nuffield Trust. Health and social care bill: second reading, House of Lords. www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/october1/health‐and‐social‐care‐bil... (accessed 1 October 2013).
Park 2019
    1. Park I, Oh M‐J, Shin S‐J. Minimal clinically important differences and correlating factors for the Rowe score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score after arthroscopic stabilization surgery for anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 2019;35(1):54‐9. - PubMed
Probert 1993
    1. Probert C, Jayanthi V, Mayberry J. British gastroenterologists' care profile for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: the need for a patients' charter. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1993;86:271‐2. - PMC - PubMed
RCP 2018
    1. Royal College of Physicians. Outpatients: the future – adding value through sustainability, 2018. www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/outpatients‐future‐adding‐value‐thr... (accessed 19 March 2020).
Reda 2012
    1. Reda S, Rowett M, Makhoul S. Prompts to encourage appointment attendance for people with serious mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002085] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Robinson 2010
    1. Robinson L, Chen R. A comparison of traditional and open‐access policies for appointment scheduling. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 2010;12(2):330‐46.
Rose 2011
    1. Rose KD, Ross JS, Horwitz LI. Advanced access scheduling outcomes: a systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171(13):1150‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Whear 2013a
    1. Whear R, Abdul‐Rahman A‐K, Boddy K, Thompson‐Coon J, Perry M, Stein K. The clinical effectiveness of patient initiated clinics for patients with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care: a systematic review. PloS One 2013;8(10):1‐11. - PMC - PubMed
Whear 2013b
    1. Whear R, Abdul‐Rahman AK, Thompson‐Coon J, Boddy K, Perry MG, Stein K. Patient initiated clinics for patients with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care: a systematic review of patient reported outcomes and patient and clinician satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research 2013;13:1‐12. - PMC - PubMed
WHO 2002
    1. World Health Organization. Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action. www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/icccreport/en/ (accessed 1 October 2013).
WHO 2011
    1. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases country profiles. www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_profiles2011/en/index.html (accessed 1 October 2013).
WHO 2013
    1. World Health Organization. Chronic diseases. www.who.int/topics/chronic_diseases/en/ (accessed 1 October 2013).

References to other published versions of this review

Whear 2013
    1. Whear R, Thompson Coon J, Rogers M, Abbott R, Ukoumunne O, Perry MG, et al. Patient‐initiated appointment systems for people with chronic conditions in secondary care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010763] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types