Abstract: Objective To observe the influences of different follow-up methods on rehabilitation and compliance of patients with severe scar after burns. Methods From January 2012 to May 2016, medical records of 116 patients with severe scar after burns who were admitted to our unit, discharged after wound healing and conforming to the criteria, were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into face-to-face follow-up group [n=59, 45 males and 14 females, aged (36±9) years] and routine follow-up group [n=57, 44 males and 13 females, aged (35±9) years] based on different follow-up methods they received. On the day of discharge and in post discharge month (PDM) 1, 3, and 6, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used to evaluate the hypertrophic scar in joints, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale was used to evaluate the disability of patients in the 2 groups. In PDM 1, 3, and 6, Medical Compliance Behavior Questionnaire was used to investigate the medical compliance behaviors of patients in the 2 groups. Data were processed with chi-square test, t test with Bonferroni correction, and analysis of variance for repeated measurement. Results (1) The VSS score of patients in face-to-face follow-up group on the day of discharge was (11.1±0.7) points, which was close to (11.7±0.7) points of routine follow-up group (t=2.021, P>0.05). The VSS scores of patients in face-to-face follow-up group in PDM 1, 3, and 6 were (10.5±0.6), (8.6±0.7), and (4.7±0.5) points, which were significantly lower than (11.4±0.7), (10.9±1.0), and (9.4±0.8) points of routine follow-up group respectively (t=2.034, 2.033, 2.042, P<0.05 or P<0.01). (2) The ADL score of patients in face-to-face follow-up group on the day of discharge was close to that of routine follow-up group (t=1.781, P>0.05). The ADL scores of patients in face-to-face follow-up group in PDM 1, 3, and 6 were higher than those of routine follow-up group respectively (t=9.683, 8.584, 9.772, P<0.01). (3) The compliance rates of consisted rehabilitation, reasonable diet, and timing consultation of patients in face-to-face follow-up group were better than those of routine follow-up group respectively (χ²=19.015, 13.251, 8.652, P<0.01). Conclusions Compared with routine follow-up by phone, face-to-face follow-up can do better in evaluating the scar condition and ADL of patients with severe scar after burns, and improve the medical compliance rates of patients, which is worthy of clinical promotion.