Text4Health: impact of text message reminder-recalls for pediatric and adolescent immunizations

• Published in: American journal of public health (1971) 2012-02, Vol.102 (2), p.e15-e21
• Main Authors: Stockwell, Melissa S, Kharbanda, Elyse Olshen, Martinez, Raquel Andres, Lara, Marcos, Vawdrey, David, Natarajan, Karthik, Rickert, Vaughn I
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescents; Age; Ambulatory care; Cellular telephones; Child; Children & youth; Clinics; Continental Population Groups - statistics & numerical data; Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccines - administration & dosage; Ethnicity; Families & family life; Female; Gender; Haemophilus Vaccines - administration & dosage; Health education; Humans; Immunization; Influenza; Intervention; Low income groups; Male; Market penetration; Meningococcal Vaccines - administration & dosage; Minority & ethnic groups; Online Only; Parents; Parents & parenting; Patients; Pediatrics; Population; Poverty - statistics & numerical data; Public health; Registration; Reminder Systems - instrumentation; Teenagers; Tetanus; Text Messaging; Urban Population - statistics & numerical data; Urban populations; Vaccination; Vaccines; Variance analysis; Whooping cough; Wireless networks
• ISSN: 0090-0036; 1541-0048
• DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2011.300331

We conducted 2 studies to determine the impact of text message immunization reminder-recalls in an urban, low-income population. In 1 study, text message immunization reminders were sent to a random sample of parents (n = 195) whose children aged 11 to 18 years needed either or both meningococcal (MCV4) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) immunizations. We compared receipt of MCV4 or Tdap at 4, 12, and 24 weeks with age- and gender-matched controls. In the other study, we compared attendance at a postshortage Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib) immunization recall session between parents who received text message and paper-mailed reminders (n = 87) and those who only received paper-mailed reminders (n = 87). Significantly more adolescents with intervention parents received either or both MCV4 and Tdap at weeks 4 (15.4% vs 4.2%; P < .001), 12 (26.7% vs 13.9%; P < .005), and 24 (36.4% vs 18.1%; P < .001). Significantly more parents who received both Hib reminders attended a recall session compared with parents who only received a mailed reminder (21.8% vs 9.2%; P < .05). After controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance status, and language, text messaging was still significantly associated with both studies' outcomes. Text messaging for reminder-recalls improved immunization coverage in a low-income, urban population.