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
Bibliographic 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".