4.4 Review

No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review

Journal

HEALTH POLICY
Volume 122, Issue 4, Pages 412-421

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002

Keywords

No-show; Appointments; Healthcare; Statistical analysis; Systematic review

Funding

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [443595/2014-3, 304843/2016-4, 306802/2015-5, 403863/2016-3]
  2. Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation (FAPERJ) [E-26/202.806/2015]
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  4. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro

Ask authors/readers for more resources

No-show appointments significantly impact the functioning of healthcare institutions, and much research has been performed to uncover and analyze the factors that influence no-show behavior. In spite of the growing body of literature on this issue, no synthesis of the state-of-the-art is presently available and no systematic literature review (SLR) exists that encompasses all medical specialties. This paper provides a SLR of no-shows in appointment scheduling in which the characteristics of existing studies are analyzed, results regarding which factors have a higher impact on missed appointment rates are synthetized, and comparisons with previous findings are performed. A total of 727 articles and review papers were retrieved from the Scopus database (which includes MEDLINE), 105 of which were selected for identification and analysis. The results indicate that the average no-show rate is of the order of 23%, being highest in the African continent (43.0%) and lowest in Oceania (13.2%). Our analysis also identified patient characteristics that were more frequently associated with no-show behavior: adults of younger age; lower socioeconomic status; place of residence is distant from the clinic; no private insurance. Furthermore, the most commonly reported significant determinants of no-show were high lead time and prior no-show history. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available