Evidence Hub

No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review

Dantas LF, Fleck JL, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Hamacher S

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018

Abstract

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.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free