Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 6 (6 total).

Institute for Child Health Policy at the University of Florida. Florida Pediatric Medical Home Demonstration Project Evaluation. https://www.healthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/florida-pediatric-medical-home-demonstration-report-year-4.pdf Updated 2014.

Link: https://www.healthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/florida-pediatric-medical-home-demonstration-report-year-4.pdf

NPM: 10: Adolescent Well-Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Parent Engagement, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Maintenance of Certification Credits, Provider Training/Education, Patient-Centered Medical Home, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention

Intervention Results:

Percentage of adolescent well-care visits increased for both Round 1 practices (69.9% in Year 1 to 76.4% in Year 4) and Round 2 practices (64.2% in Year 3 to 72.3% in Year 4)

Szilagyi PG, Humiston SG, Gallivan S, Albertin C, Sandler M, Blumkin A. Effectiveness of a citywide patient immunization navigator program on improving adolescent immunizations and preventive care visit rates. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(6):547-553.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21646588/

NPM: 10: Adolescent Well-Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation, Home Visits, Transportation Assistance

Intervention Results:

Significant increase in preventive care visit rates in the intervention group vs control group (p<.01)

Szilagyi PG, Schaffer S, Barth R, et al. Effect of telephone reminder/recall on adolescent immunization and preventive visits: results from a randomized clinical trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(2):157-163.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16461871/

NPM: 10: Adolescent Well-Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

No significant increase in adolescent well visit rates

Greene J. Using consumer incentives to increase well-child visits among low-income children. Med Care Res Review. 2011;68(5):579-593.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536605

NPM: 10: Adolescent Well-Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Incentives

Intervention Results:

  • Significant increase in adolescent well-care visits in Year 1 for children with both CHIP $10 premium and CHIP $15 premium vs Medicaid comparison group (p<.001)
  • Significant increase in adolescent well-care visits in Year 2 for children with both CHIP $10 premium and CHIP $15 premium vs Medicaid comparison group (p<.001)

Knishkowy B, Palti H, Schein M, Yaphe J, Edman R, Baras M. Adolescent preventive health visits: a comparison of two invitation protocols. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000;13(1):11-16.

Link: http://www.jabfm.org/content/13/1/11.full.pdf+html

NPM: 10: Adolescent Well-Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

  • No significant increase in well-child attendance rate for seventh graders
  • No significant increase in well-child attendance rate for tenth graders

Szilagyi PG, Albertin C, Humiston SG, et al. A randomized trial of the effect of centralized reminder/recall on immunizations and preventive care visits for adolescents. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(3):204-213.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23510607/

NPM: 10: Adolescent Well-Visit
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Patient Reminder/Invitation

Intervention Results:

  • Significantly higher rates of annual preventive care visits in the mailed reminder group vs control group (Hazard ratio=1.2; CI=1.1- 1.3; p<.01)
  • Significantly higher rates of annual preventive care visits in the telephone reminder group vs control group (Hazard ratio=1.1; CI=1.0-1.2; p<.05)
   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.