| Literature DB >> 35795715 |
Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman1,2, Shafiqul Ameen2, Aniqa Tasnim Hossain2, Janet Perkins1, Sabrina Jabeen2, Tamanna Majid2, Afm Azim Uddin2, Md Ziaul Haque Shaikh2, Muhammad Shariful Islam3, Md Jahurul Islam3, Sabina Ashrafee3, Husam Md Shah Alam3, Ashfia Saberin3, Sabbir Ahmed4, Goutom Banik4, Anm Ehtesham Kabir4, Anisuddin Ahmed2, Mohammod Jobayer Chisti2, Steve Cunningham1, David H Dockrell1, Harish Nair1, Shams El Arifeen2, Harry Campbell1.
Abstract
Background: Pulse oximetry has potential for identifying hypoxaemic pneumonia and substantially reducing under-five deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) setting. However, there are few examples of introducing pulse oximetry in resource-constrained paediatric outpatient settings, such as Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) services.Entities:
Keywords: Bangladesh; Feasibility; IMCI; Implementation research; Pneumonia; Pulse oximetry
Year: 2022 PMID: 35795715 PMCID: PMC9251564 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EClinicalMedicine ISSN: 2589-5370
Research questions and benchmarks for successful demonstration; adapted from WHO's implementation outcome variables and finalised through stakeholder consultations.
| WHO's framework | Research questions | Proposed indicator | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) Adoption | I. Use: Do IMCI service-providers conduct pulse oximetry assessments? | Proportion of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-providers with a pulse oximetry device | >90% |
| b) Feasibility | II. Success: Can IMCI service-providers successfully conduct pulse oximetry assessments? | Proportion of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-providers with a pulse oximetry device and obtain a stable SpO2 reading | >80% |
| III. Usability by attempt: Can IMCI service-providers successfully conduct pulse oximetry assessments in the first attempt? | Proportion of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-providers with a pulse oximetry device and obtain a stable SpO2 reading in one attempt | >75% | |
| IV. Usability by time: Can IMCI service-providers successfully perform pulse oximetry in one minute? | Proportion of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-providers with a pulse oximetry device and obtain a stable SpO2 reading in one minute | >66% | |
| c) Fidelity | V. Adherence: Do IMCI service-providers follow Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) while conducting pulse oximetry assessments? | Proportion of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-provider with a pulse oximetry device by putting the probe in appropriate position and direction and taking measures to keep the child calm during the procedure | >75% |
| VI. Agreement: Can IMCI service-providers identify hypoxaemia through pulse oximetry? | Level of observed agreement between IMCI service-providers and study nurses regarding hypoxaemia identification through pulse oximetry | >90% | |
| d) Appropriateness | VII. Experience: Do IMCI service- providers conduct pulse oximetry assessments with reasonably low barriers and challenges? | Proportion of IMCI service-providers reporting an average challenge level of 80% or less regarding conducting pulse oximetry assessments in routine outpatient settings | >80% |
| e) Acceptability | VIII. Usefulness: Do IMCI service-providers perceive pulse oximetry as useful? | Proportion of IMCI service-providers reporting that pulse oximetry is useful for identifying hypoxaemia and pneumonia classification | >80% |
| IX. Importance: Do the caregivers perceive pulse oximetry as important? | Proportion of caregiver of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-providers with a pulse oximetry device reporting that pulse oximetry was important for assessing their children | >80% | |
| X. Satisfaction: Are the caregivers satisfied with pulse oximetry introduction in routine IMCI services? | Proportion of children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing assessed by IMCI service-providers with a pulse oximetry device reporting that they will allow conducting pulse oximetry assessments on their children in future visits. | >80% | |
| f) Sustainability | XI. Sustainability: Does the pulse oximetry performance of IMCI service-providers sustain over time (rounds)? | Proportions of the above-mentioned indicators representing adoption, feasibility, fidelity, appropriateness and acceptance of pulse oximetry demonstrating equal or better performance round-2 than that of round-1 | >80% |
Figure 1Sample size by each round of assessments.
Figure 2Performance of conducting pulse oximetry assessments by IMCI service-providers among children presenting with cough/difficulty-in-breathing, presented in percentages with 95% CI, (N=1680). Each of the bars indicate a distinct implementation outcome indicator. The first green bar represents adoption, the blue bars represent feasibility, the yellow bars represent fidelity, the brown bar represents appropriateness, the purple bars represent acceptability and the light blue bar at the end represents sustainability.
Influence of patient-, provider- and facility-related factors on the performance of conducting pulse oximetry assessments by IMCI service-providers, presented in adjusted odds ratios, N=1680.
| Feasibility-usability: Success at first attempt | Feasibility-performance time: Success within 60 seconds | Fidelity-adherence: Adherence to SoP of PO use | Fidelity-agreement: Observed agreement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |
| Patient-related factors | ||||
| Age | ||||
| 2-11 months | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 12-59 months | 2.2 (1.65,2.93)* | 2.05 (1.65,2.55)* | 1.06 (0.69,1.61) | 1.19 (0.67,2.11) |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Male | 1.54 (1.16,2.04)* | 1.21 (0.98,1.5) | 0.69 (0.46,1.05) | 1.07 (0.6,1.89) |
| Z-score (weight for height) | ||||
| Not wasted (-2SD and above) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Wasted (below -2SD) | 0.82 (0.47,1.43) | 0.79 (0.51,1.24) | 0.75 (0.29,1.94) | 1.46 (0.36,5.95) |
| Severely wasted (below -3SD) | 0.8 (0.41,1.55) | 0.89 (0.52,1.53) | 1.59 (0.33,7.72) | 0.75 (0.21,2.59) |
| Fever | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.99 (0.52,1.91) | 0.79 (0.49,1.27) | 0.5 (0.18,1.36) | 0.92 (0.3,2.84) |
| Fast breathing | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.03 (0.3,3.56) | 1.08 (0.4,2.91) | 0.6 (0.07,5.43) | 1 (0.16,6.15) |
| Chest indrawing | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.68 (0.28,1.65) | 0.9 (0.44,1.84) | 0.81 (0.19,3.55) | 1.35 (0.33,5.53) |
| IMCI classification | ||||
| No pneumonia | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Pneumonia/Severe pneumonia | 1.06 (0.3,3.78) | 0.88 (0.32,2.42) | 1.32 (0.14,12.1) | 0.38 (0.06,2.4) |
| Provider-related factors | ||||
| Age | ||||
| ≤ 35 years | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| > 35 years | 1.08 (0.72,1.62) | 1.17 (0.9,1.53) | 0.29 (0.15,0.53)* | 1.1 (0.27,4.44) |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Male | 0.88 (0.54,1.44) | 1.05 (0.78,1.43) | 2.98 (1.34,6.63)* | 0.72 (0.1,5.31) |
| Designation | ||||
| Doctors | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Nurse | 0.6 (0.34,1.05) | 1.03 (0.73,1.45) | 0.42 (0.16,1.1)* | 0.49 (0.06,4.17) |
| Paramedics | 0.82 (0.46,1.45) | 0.77 (0.55,1.08) | 1.88 (0.55,6.43)* | 0.3 (0.04,2.12) |
| Facility-related factors | ||||
| District Hospital | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Sub-District Hospital | 0.91 (0.49,1.72) | 1.06 (0.72,1.55) | 0.03 (0,0.25) | 1.33 (0.15,11.38) |
| Health Centre | 0.76 (0.36,1.62) | 0.81 (0.51,1.29) | 0 (0,0.05) | 4.97 (0.36,68.53) |
| Assessments | ||||
| Round | ||||
| Round 1 | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Round 2 | 0.98 (0.74,1.3) | 1.3 (1.05,1.62)* | 28.62 (11.03,74.29)* | 1.76 (0.96,3.23) |
Figure 3Variability in performance of conducting pulse oximetry assessments by individual IMCI service-providers, presented in percentage. The heterogeneity statistics I2 (i.e. proportion of heterogeneity between estimates that is not due to chance) and Tau2 (i.e. the magnitude of the heterogeneity) were significant at 5% level of significance.
Figure 4Performance time for conducting pulse oximetry assessment by patient-, provider-, and facility-related factors and by individual IMCI service-providers, presented in median seconds with IQR.
Figure 5Device-, patient-, environment- and user-related barriers and challenges faced by the IMCI service-providers during pulse oximetry assessments, presented in mean score with SD based on a five-point Likert Scale, N=22. The light green shaded region indicates lower level of challenges and light red shaded region indicates higher level of challenges in in performing pulse oximetry assessments.
Figure 6Agreement between IMCI service-providers and study appointed nurses using prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) - by patient-related, provider-related and facility-related factors and by individual IMCI service-providers, presented as coefficient and 95% CI. The light red and yellow shaded regions indicate lower agreement PABAK score and the green shaded regions indicate higher agreement PABAK score.