ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Community health worker and caregiver experiences and perceptions of a multimodal handheld pulse oximeter used in sick child consultations in rural Burundi: A qualitative evaluation.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of automated respiratory rate counters for respiratory rate assessment to support pneumonia detection among children under five years of age in low- and middle-income settings: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence.Journal of global health · 2026Pooled it
- Multimodal pulse oximeters to support the integrated management of childhood illnesses: A usability and diagnostic accuracy assessment from a multi-country hybrid type 2 study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community Health Workers (CHWs) in low- and middle-income countries are essential in providing primary health care to remote communities. However, due to limited diagnostic tools, CHWs often struggle to correctly identify childhood illnesses, especially pneumonia. We conducted a prospective pilot study and used qualitative research methods to evaluate acceptability and feasibility of a multimodal pulse oximeter used by CHWs during their integrated community case management (iCCM) of childhood illness consultations in rural Burundi. We used purposive sampling to recruit CHWs and trained them to use the oximeters during household iCCM consultations for children 6-59 months of age. After eight weeks of using the devices, we conducted eight focus group discussions to evaluate experiences and perceptions of the device among CHWs and caregivers. Our thematic analysis, based upon deductive and inductive reasoning, identified the following themes: durability, storability, trust, self-efficacy, child agitation, ease of using the device, and interpretation of parameters. CHWs deemed the devices highly acceptable and took pride in safely storing them but reported challenges in utilizing respiration rate, pulse, and oxygen saturation (though temperature was understood). Child agitation was a barrier to oximeter use, especially among children 6-12 months. Additional CHW capacity-building on interpreting parameters is needed when using oximeters during household iCCM consultations in Burundi, including an iCCM job aid (decision-making tree) with oxygen saturation and respiratory rate cut-offs for treatment and/or referral. Training and using child-calming techniques could be an important strategy for obtaining quality measurements. While CHWs and caregivers highly valued the oximeters during sick child visits, the devices may be better utilized and scalable at the health facility level.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.