Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37535831›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Patient and Clinician Perceptions of the Pulse Oximeter in a Remote Monitoring Setting for COVID-19: Qualitative Study.

Andrea Torres-Robles, Karen Allison, Simon K Poon, Miranda Shaw, Owen Hutchings, Warwick J Britton, Andrew Wilson, Melissa Baysari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea Torres-RoblesMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8751-5706
Karen AllisonSydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5411-4252
Simon K PoonSchool of Computer Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2726-9109
Miranda ShawRoyal Prince Alfred Virtual Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9358-8258
Owen HutchingsRoyal Prince Alfred Virtual Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2793-0027
Warwick J BrittonSydney Local Health District, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6721-9646
Andrew WilsonMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1809-7846
Melissa BaysariFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1645-9126
The University of Sydney · AUSydney Local Health District · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sydney Local Health District in New South Wales, Australia, launched the rpavirtual program, the first full-scale virtual hospital in Australia, to remotely monitor and follow up stable patients with COVID-19. As part of the intervention, a pulse oximeter wearable device was delivered to patients to monitor their oxygen saturation levels, a critical indicator of COVID-19 patient deterioration. Understanding users' perceptions toward the device is fundamental to assessing its usability and acceptability and contributing to the effectiveness of the intervention, but no research to date has explored the user experience of the pulse oximeter for remote monitoring in this setting.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore the use, performance, and acceptability of the pulse oximeter by clinicians and patients in rpavirtual during COVID-19.

methodsSemistructured interviews and usability testing were conducted. Stable adult patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥18 years) who used the pulse oximeter and were monitored by rpavirtual, and rpavirtual clinicians monitoring these patients were interviewed. Clinicians could be nurses, doctors, or staff who were part of the team that assisted patients with the use of the pulse oximeter. Usability testing was conducted with patients who had the pulse oximeter when they were contacted. Interviews were coded using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Usability testing was conducted using a think-aloud protocol. Data were collected until saturation was reached.

resultsTwenty-one patients (average age 51, SD 13 years) and 15 clinicians (average age 41, SD 11 years) completed the interview. Eight patients (average age 51, SD 13 years) completed the usability testing. All participants liked the device and thought it was easy to use. They also had a good understanding of how to use the device and the device's purpose. Patients' age and device use-related characteristics (eg, the warmth of hands and hand steadiness) were identified by users as factors negatively impacting the accurate use of the pulse oximeter.

conclusionsPatients and clinicians had very positive perceptions of the pulse oximeter for COVID-19 remote monitoring, indicating high acceptability and usability of the device. However, factors that may impact the accuracy of the device should be considered when delivering interventions using the pulse oximeter for remote monitoring. Targeted instructions about the use of the device may be necessary for specific populations (eg, older people and patients unfamiliar with technology). Further research should focus on the integration of the pulse oximeter data into electronic medical records for real-time and secure patient monitoring.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAdolescentAdultAgedHumansMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOximetryOxygenOxygenacceptabilityCOVID-19oximetrypatient experiencepulse oximetryremote monitoringusabilityuser experiencewearable device

Identifiers

PMID37535831
PMCPMC10482056
OpenAlexW4385415005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.