ArticlePrimary health care research & development2026
Acceptability and appropriateness of remote monitoring and self-administered pulse oximetry among COVID-19 patients in Honduras: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo assess the acceptability and appropriateness of remote patient monitoring and self-administered pulse oximetry among high-risk COVID-19 patients, triage centre staff, and study personnel in Tegucigalpa and Comayagüela, Honduras.
introductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the Honduras Secretariat of Health and partners conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of remote patient monitoring with versus without self-administered pulse oximetry in high-risk populations in urban Honduras. Acceptability and appropriateness were examined to inform future intervention adaptation.
methodsThis mixed-methods study included trial participants, study and triage centre staff. Data sources include trial data, computer-aided self-interviews, and in-depth interviews. The trial ran from March 2022 to January 2023.
findings1767 participants completed a disenrollment questionnaire. Thirty-four providers completed a self-interview, and 16 participated in an in-depth interview. Respondents understood interventions and expressed positive attitudes; SESAL staff attitudes were less positive. 94.9% of participants reported willingness to participate again. Some staff expressed concern over participant comprehension and pulse oximeter self-administration, but participants reported successful use. Providers were confident implementing the intervention, but some questioned its appropriateness given competing priorities. Overall, study participants and healthcare providers believed interventions were an acceptable way to monitor for deterioration during the acute phase of a COVID-19 infection. Findings showed that an intervention can be acceptable, but appropriateness may be less clear-cut due to competing priorities. The approach shows promise for adaptation to other settings experiencing health emergencies where technology penetration is high and healthcare availability does not align with demand; appropriateness considerations should be explored prior to implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.