Evaluation for noncompliance of recall in patients reporting to oral pathology department: Longitudinal study of 5 years

• Published in: Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 113 - 116
• Main Authors: Sinha, Anuradha, Bansal, Shivani, Shirsat, Pankaj, Prasad, Pooja, Desai, Rajiv
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.01.2020; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
• Subjects: Age; Clinical medicine; Communication; Email; Head & neck cancer; Longitudinal studies; Males; Medical research; Noncompliance; Original; Pathology; Patient compliance; Patients; Studies; Tumors; recurrence; patient's compliance; recall; Follow-up
• ISSN: 0973-029X; 1998-393X
• DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_170_19

Background: Regardless of the form of treatment, long-term follow-up of the patient is an absolute necessity. This study aimed to follow surgically treated patients visiting our department of oral pathology over 5 years (January 2011-December 2015) to monitor recurrence of the condition, patient compliance and reasons for noncompliance. Materials and Methods: We conducted half-yearly recall for patients visiting our department from January 2011 to December 2015. Patients were recalled through the use of letters, telephonic reminders and e-mails. Results: The study included 171 recalled patients of whom, 42 (24.56%) reported for follow-up, while the remaining 129 (75.43%) did not report for follow-up. Of the 42 reporting patients, 26 (61.90%) reported once, 10 (23.81%) twice and 6 (14.28%) three times. Recurrence of the condition was reported in two cases. The reasons for noncompliance included: financial constraints (22.48%), casual attitude (37.20%), reported to nearby hospitals (5.42%) and lack of time (11.62%). Some patients could not be sent reminder letters due to incomplete address (7.75%), the wrong pin code (6.97%), change of address (4.65%), locked house (3.10%) and death of the patient (0.77%). Conclusion: This study highlights patient recall appointment noncompliance, ascribing various reasons to the patient's attrition rate for recall appointments. Probable solutions for increasing the compliance for recall need to be addressed, and further research should be conducted to evaluate these solutions.