ArticleBMJ public health2026
Pilot implementation of 'outsourced oxygen to the bedside' models in five countries: a mixed methods impact assessment.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical oxygen is an essential medicine that is often unavailable for patients when they need it. We explored if 'outsourced oxygen to the bedside' (O2B) pilots, where private providers deliver a package of services, were successful in ensuring reliable oxygen access at the patient bedside. Methods: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods assessment of O2B pilots in Kenya, Nigeria, India, Tanzania and Uganda from September 2024 to January 2025. A quantitative cross-sectional facility audit described facility contexts, tested equipment functionality and assessed healthcare worker (HCW) oxygen knowledge. Qualitative interviews with HCWs and managers explored experiences of O2B pilots. Results: We studied 28 of the 80 facilities participating in the pilots, 179 HCWs completed the knowledge survey and 59 qualitative interviews were conducted. In the audit, we found O2B provided oxygen equipment more functional and usable than non-O2B equipment: 64.5% vs 40.9%, p<0.001 for cylinders, 95.0% vs 25.7% (p<0.001) for concentrators and 84.0% vs 70.0% (p value=0.172) for pulse oximeters. Overall, 21.8% (39/179) of HCWs had received training from O2B providers, and their oxygen knowledge was slightly higher than those who had not (mean score 15.3/24 vs 13.9/24, p value=0.002). Qualitative interviews highlighted positive changes in oxygen access and the ability to treat patients, but also mixed understandings of the O2B services being provided, and requests for additional services. Conclusion: O2B pilots appear to improve medical oxygen access, with effective maintenance and repair services being a key mechanism. However, tailoring to local needs and remaining gaps in HCW capacity need to be addressed.
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.