Dataset Information

The HER Salt Lake media campaign: comparing characteristics and outcomes of clients who make appointments online versus standard scheduling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little research has examined how media outreach strategies affect the outcomes of contraceptive initiatives. Thus, this paper assesses the potential impact of an online media campaign introduced during the last six months of a contraceptive initiative study based in Salt Lake City, UT (USA).

Methods

During the last six months of the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative (September 2016-March 2017), we introduced an online media campaign designed to connect potential clients to information about the initiative and a brief (9-item) appointment request form (via HERsaltlake.org). Using linked data from the online form and electronic medical records, we examine differences in demographics, appointment show rates, and contraceptive choices between "online requester" clients who made clinical appointments through the online form (n = 356) and "standard requester" clients who made appointments using standard scheduling (n = 3,051). We used summary statistics and multivariable regression to compare groups.

Results

The campaign logged 1.7 million impressions and 15,765 clicks on advertisements leading to the campaign website (HERSaltLake.org). Compared to standard requesters, online requesters less frequently reported a past pregnancy and were more likely to be younger, white, and to enroll in the survey arm of the study. Relative to standard requesters and holding covariates constant, online requesters were more likely to select copper IUDs (RRR: 8.14), hormonal IUDs (RRR: 12.36), and implants (RRR: 10.75) over combined hormonal contraceptives (the contraceptive pill, patch, and ring). Uptake of the contraceptive injectable, condoms, and emergency contraception did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Clients demonstrating engagement with the media campaign had different demographic characteristics and outcomes than those using standard scheduling to arrange care. Online media campaigns can be useful for connecting clients with advertised contraceptive methods and initiatives. However, depending on design strategy, the use of media campaigns might shift the demographics and characteristics of clients who participate in contraceptive initiatives.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02734199, Registered 12 April 2016-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02734199 .

SUBMITTER: Myers K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7986020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID 19 pandemic increased the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic testing for COVID. When testing became available, a systems response was needed to efficiently accommodate the high-volume flow of patients who needed testing. Self-scheduling of COVID testing was developed to help patients safely and efficiently schedule their COVID testing online or with a mobile app.MethodsWe captured the counts of COVID test appointments, time patients spent in scheduling COVID test appointments, appointment lead times, and no-shows for COVID test appointments. For 17 months of self-scheduling, we retrospectively compared self-scheduling with the concurrent staff scheduling of COVID tests.ResultsFrom November 2020 through March 2022 there were 619 104 scheduled appointments for COVID testing with 22% (136 252) being self-scheduled. For asymptomatic self-scheduled COVID tests, accounting for 10.3% (63 605/619 104) of total COVID tests scheduled, median time to self-schedule was 3.1 min, interquartile range (IQR) [2.4,4.7]. For symptomatic self-schedulers accounting for 11.7% (72 647/619 104) of total COVID tests scheduled, the median time to self-triage and self-schedule was 5.8 min, IQR[4.3,8.9]. Self-scheduled COVID appointments increased to 44% (42 387/97 086) of the total COVID appointments during the peak month of January 2022. Median appointment lead time for symptomatic self-scheduled COVID test appointments was 6.6 h compared to 2.9 h (P < .0001) for symptomatic staff scheduled appointments. However, adjusting for the 24% (32 194/135 252) that self-scheduled during hours when testing was unavailable, the median appointment lead time for symptomatic self-scheduled patients dropped to 3.6 h. No-shows were 2.5% for self-scheduled appointments compared to 3.0% no-shows that were staff scheduled (odds ratio 0.83, P < .0001).ConclusionCOVID testing was self-scheduled for a large percent of scheduled COVID tests, taking patients only a few minutes to complete. Self-scheduling use increased over time, associated with a decreasing use of staff scheduled appointments and lower no-shows.

Project description:ImportanceRacial and ethnic disparities in access to health care may result from discrimination.ObjectivesTo identify differences in the rates at which patients belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups are offered primary care appointments and the number of days they wait for their primary care appointment and to understand the mechanisms by which discrimination occurs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used 7 simulated black, Hispanic, and white patient callers to request appointments from 804 randomized primary care offices in 2 urban centers in Texas from November 2017 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted between February and December 2018.ExposuresResearch assistants called randomly assigned offices to schedule an appointment, supplying the same basic information. Race and ethnicity were signaled through callers' names and voices.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment offer rates, days to appointment, and questions asked during the call.ResultsOf the 7 callers (age range, 18-29 years), 2 (28.6%) self-identified as non-Hispanic black, 3 (42.9%) self-identified as non-Hispanic white, and 2 (28.6%) self-identified as Hispanic. Of the 804 calls they made, 299 (37.2%) were from simulated white callers, 215 (26.7%) were from simulated black callers, and 290 (36.1%) were from simulated Hispanic callers. Overall, 582 callers (72.4%) were offered appointments. In unadjusted models, black and Hispanic callers were more likely to be offered an appointment than white callers (black callers, 32.2 [95% CI, 25.1-39.3] percentage points more likely; P < .001; Hispanic callers, 21.1 [95% CI, 13.7-28.5] percentage points more likely; P < .001). However, after adjusting for whether insurance status was revealed, this statistical significance was lost. In adjusted models, black callers were 44.0 (95% CI, 36.2-51.8) percentage points more likely to be asked about their insurance status than white callers (P < .001), and Hispanic callers were 25.3 (95% CI, 17.1-33.5) percentage points more likely to be asked about their insurance status (P < .001) than white callers. Black and Hispanic callers received appointments further in the future than white callers (black callers: marginal effect estimate, 3.650; 95% CI, 0.579 to 6.721; P = .08; Hispanic callers: marginal effect estimate, 2.644; 95% CI, -0.496 to 5.784; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, black and Hispanic patients were more likely to be offered an appointment, but they were asked more frequently about their insurance status than white callers. Black and Hispanic callers experienced longer wait times than white patients, indicating a barrier to timely access to primary care.