James Black1, Marie Gerdtz2, Pat Nicholson3, Dianne Crellin4, Laura Browning5, Julie Simpson6, Lauren Bell7, Nick Santamaria2. 1. Nossal Institute for Global Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: jim.black@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne Health, Australia. 3. Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Australia; Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Australia. 6. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia. 7. Nossal Institute for Global Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory rate is an important sign that is commonly either not recorded or recorded incorrectly. Mobile phone ownership is increasing even in resource-poor settings. Phone applications may improve the accuracy and ease of counting of respiratory rates. OBJECTIVES: The study assessed the reliability and initial users' impressions of four mobile phone respiratory timer approaches, compared to a 60-second count by the same participants. METHODS: Three mobile applications (applying four different counting approaches plus a standard 60-second count) were created using the Java Mobile Edition and tested on Nokia C1-01 phones. Apart from the 60-second timer application, the others included a counter based on the time for ten breaths, and three based on the time interval between breaths ('Once-per-Breath', in which the user presses for each breath and the application calculates the rate after 10 or 20 breaths, or after 60s). Nursing and physiotherapy students used the applications to count respiratory rates in a set of brief video recordings of children with different respiratory illnesses. Limits of agreement (compared to the same participant's standard 60-second count), intra-class correlation coefficients and standard errors of measurement were calculated to compare the reliability of the four approaches, and a usability questionnaire was completed by the participants. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the counts, with large components of the variation related to the participants and the videos, as well as the methods. None of the methods was entirely reliable, with no limits of agreement better than -10 to +9 breaths/min. Some of the methods were superior to the others, with ICCs from 0.24 to 0.92. By ICC the Once-per-Breath 60-second count and the Once-per-Breath 20-breath count were the most consistent, better even than the 60-second count by the participants. The 10-breath approaches performed least well. Users' initial impressions were positive, with little difference between the applications found. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that applications running on simple phones can be used to count respiratory rates in children. The Once-per-Breath methods are the most reliable, outperforming the 60-second count. For children with raised respiratory rates the 20-breath version of the Once-per-Breath method is faster, so it is a more suitable option where health workers are under time pressure.
BACKGROUND: Respiratory rate is an important sign that is commonly either not recorded or recorded incorrectly. Mobile phone ownership is increasing even in resource-poor settings. Phone applications may improve the accuracy and ease of counting of respiratory rates. OBJECTIVES: The study assessed the reliability and initial users' impressions of four mobile phone respiratory timer approaches, compared to a 60-second count by the same participants. METHODS: Three mobile applications (applying four different counting approaches plus a standard 60-second count) were created using the Java Mobile Edition and tested on Nokia C1-01 phones. Apart from the 60-second timer application, the others included a counter based on the time for ten breaths, and three based on the time interval between breaths ('Once-per-Breath', in which the user presses for each breath and the application calculates the rate after 10 or 20 breaths, or after 60s). Nursing and physiotherapy students used the applications to count respiratory rates in a set of brief video recordings of children with different respiratory illnesses. Limits of agreement (compared to the same participant's standard 60-second count), intra-class correlation coefficients and standard errors of measurement were calculated to compare the reliability of the four approaches, and a usability questionnaire was completed by the participants. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the counts, with large components of the variation related to the participants and the videos, as well as the methods. None of the methods was entirely reliable, with no limits of agreement better than -10 to +9 breaths/min. Some of the methods were superior to the others, with ICCs from 0.24 to 0.92. By ICC the Once-per-Breath 60-second count and the Once-per-Breath 20-breath count were the most consistent, better even than the 60-second count by the participants. The 10-breath approaches performed least well. Users' initial impressions were positive, with little difference between the applications found. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that applications running on simple phones can be used to count respiratory rates in children. The Once-per-Breath methods are the most reliable, outperforming the 60-second count. For children with raised respiratory rates the 20-breath version of the Once-per-Breath method is faster, so it is a more suitable option where health workers are under time pressure.
Authors: Amy Sarah Ginsburg; Jaclyn Delarosa; Waylon Brunette; Shahar Levari; Mitch Sundt; Clarice Larson; Charlotte Tawiah Agyemang; Sam Newton; Gaetano Borriello; Richard Anderson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kevin Baker; Mucunguzi Akasiima; Alexandra Wharton-Smith; Tedila Habte; Lena Matata; Diana Nanyumba; Morris Okwir; Anteneh Sebsibe; Madeleine Marasciulo; Max Petzold; Karin Källander Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-10-25
Authors: Charlotte Ward; Kevin Baker; Sarah Marks; Dawit Getachew; Tedila Habte; Cindy McWhorter; Paul Labarre; Jonathan Howard-Brand; Nathan P Miller; Hayalnesh Tarekegn; Solomie Jebessa Deribessa; Max Petzold; Karin Kallander Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-04-02
Authors: Noa Kallioinen; Andrew Hill; Melany J Christofidis; Mark S Horswill; Marcus O Watson Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.057