4.5 Review

Providing oxygen to children in hospitals: a realist review

期刊

BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 288-302

出版社

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.16.186676

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To identify and describe interventions to improve oxygen therapy in hospitals in low-resource settings, and to determine the factors that contribute to success and failure in different contexts. Methods Using realist review methods, we scanned the literature and contacted experts in the field to identify possible mechanistic theories of how interventions to improve oxygen therapy systems might work. Then we systematically searched online databases for evaluations of improved oxygen systems in hospitals in low- or middle-income countries. We extracted data on the effectiveness, processes and underlying theory of selected projects, and used these data to test the candidate theories and identify the features of successful projects. Findings We included 20 improved oxygen therapy projects (45 papers) from 15 countries. These used various approaches to improving oxygen therapy, and reported clinical, quality of care and technical outcomes. Four effectiveness studies demonstrated positive clinical outcomes for childhood pneumonia, with large variation between programmes and hospitals. We identified factors that help or hinder success, and proposed a practical framework depicting the key requirements for hospitals to effectively provide oxygen therapy to children. To improve clinical outcomes, oxygen improvement programmes must achieve good access to oxygen and good use of oxygen, which should be facilitated by a broad quality improvement capacity, by a strong managerial and policy support and multidisciplinary teamwork. Conclusion Our findings can inform practitioners and policy-makers about how to improve oxygen therapy in low-resource settings, and may be relevant for other interventions involving the introduction of health technologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据