Back

Predicting Infant Nonattendance at the Next Recommended Well-Child Visit: Model Development and Validation

Luff, A.; Shields, M.; Hirschtick, J.; Ingle, M.; Crosh, C.; Marsh, M.; Modave, F.; Fitzpatrick, V.

2026-03-26 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.03.24.26348063 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWell-child visits (WCVs) are essential for preventive care, yet missed appointments often lead to delayed interventions. We developed and validated models to predict next-visit nonattendance using routine electronic health record data. MethodsUsing data from two Chicago-area pediatric practices, Practice A (1,215 patients; 3,654 visits) and Practice B (1,271 patients; 3,044 visits), we compared regularized logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost models. Predictors included visit context, prior utilization, and patient characteristics. Models were trained on Practice A and validated on Practice B. ResultsMissed-next-visit rates were 16.2%(A) and 20.7%(B). In external validation, performance was similar across models (AUC 0.66-0.68). At the threshold maximizing F1 score, recall ranged from 0.54-0.71. The LASSO logistic regression model identified six key predictors: timepoint, visit delay, prior no-shows, schedule lead time, new patient status, and immunization refusal. SHAP values confirmed these process measures as among the most influential features across all models. ConclusionPredicting WCV nonattendance is feasible using routine data. A simple logistic regression model performs comparably to complex algorithms, offering a practical pathway for clinical integration. By identifying at-risk families during a current appointment, this may enable clinicians to provide proactive support to support preventive care before a lapse occurs. ImpactO_LIMissed well-child visits are common, leading to an increasing number of preventable acute care visits, delayed recognition of developmental delays, and missed opportunities to initiate early intervention C_LIO_LIA multimodal approach is needed to support well-child visit attendance C_LIO_LIMachine learning is an emerging tool to predict well-child visit no show rates with implications for future interventions to support families at risk for missing well-child visits and promote positive health outcomes C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.1%
3
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
4
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
7
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
8
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
10
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
11
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
81 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
15
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
17
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 69%
1.0%
19
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
26
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
28
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
30
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%