Patient and clinician use characteristics and perceptions of pulse oximeter use: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The need to monitor patients outside of a formal clinical setting, such as a hospital or ambulatory care facility, has become increasingly important since COVID-19. It introduces significant challenges to ensure accurate and timely measurements, maintain strong patient engagement, and operationalise data for clinical decision-making. Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) devices like the pulse oximeter help mitigate these difficulties, however, practical approaches to successfully integrate this technology into existing patient-clinician interactions that ensure the delivery of safe and effective care are vital. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesise existing literature to provide an overview of the variety of user perceptions associated with pulse oximeter devices, which may impact patients’ and clinicians’ acceptance of the devices in a RPM context. METHODS: A search over three databases was conducted between April 2021 – June 2021 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A total of 16 articles were included in this scoping review. RESULTS: Results indicate there has been an increase in use of pulse oximeters across hospital and community settings for continuous vital signs monitoring and remote monitoring of patients over time. Research in this area is shifting towards increasing accessibility of care through the development and implementation of telehealth systems and phone oximeters. Aspects of pulse oximeter UX most frequently investigated are usability and acceptability, however, these terms are often undefined, or definitions vary across studies. Perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs, and attitude towards use remain unexplored areas of UX. Overall, patients and clinicians view the pulse oximeter positively and find it user-friendly. A high level of learnability was found for the device and additional benefits included increasing patient self-efficacy and clinician motivation to work. However, issues getting an accurate reading due to device usability are still experienced by some patients and clinicians. CONCLUSION: This scoping review is the first to summarise user perceptions of the pulse oximeter in a healthcare context. It showed that both patients and clinicians hold positive perceptions of the pulse oximeter and important factors to consider in designing user-focused services include ease-of-use and wearability of devices; context of use including user’s prior health and IT knowledge; attitude towards use and perceived effectiveness; impact on user motivation and self-efficacy; and finally, potential user costs like inconvenience or increased anxiety. With the rapid increase in research studies examining pulse oximeter use for RPM since COVID-19, a systematic review is warranted as the next step to consolidate evidence and investigate the impact of these factors on pulse oximeter acceptance and effectiveness.