Table 2.
Number and proportion of child consultation steps correctly performed by HEW with ChARM after training (observation one) and after 2 mo of routine use (observation two)
| No | Consultation step | Observation 1 (after training) | Observation 2 (after 2 mo) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | %d | 95% CI | n | %d | 95% CI | ||
| 1 | Correct child positiona | 200 | 76.3 | 71.2‐81.5 | 273 | 81.0 | 76.8‐85.2 |
| 2 | Correct device positiona | 214 | 81.7 | 77.0‐86.4 | 319 | 94.7 | 92.3‐97.1 |
| 3 | Correct belt positiona | 259 | 98.9 | 97.6‐1.0 | 337 | 100.0 | 98.9‐1.0 |
| 4 | Correct age groupb | 248 | 94.7 | 91.9‐97.4 | 332 | 98.5 | 97.2‐99.8 |
| 5 | Child calm before ChARM attempta | 242 | 92.4 | 89.2‐95.6 | 326 | 96.7 | 94.8‐98.6 |
| 6 | Child not eating/feeding during ChARM attempta | 256 | 97.7 | 95.9‐99.5 | 336 | 99.7 | 99.1‐1.0 |
| 7 | Child calm during ChARM attempta | 249 | 95.0 | 92.4‐97.7 | 332 | 98.5 | 97.2‐99.8 |
| 1‐7 | Cumulative assessment (steps 1‐7) | 186 | 55.3 | 49.9‐61.4 | 251 | 74.5 | 69.8‐79.1 |
| 8 | Correct classification using ChARM (yes/no?)b | 256 | 98.8 | 97.5‐1.0 | 333 | 99.4 | 97.5‐1.0 |
| 1‐8 | Correct assessment and classification (steps 1‐8) – primary outcome | 145 | 56.0 | 49.9‐62.0 | 250 | 74.6 | 69.9‐79.3 |
| 9 | Correct treatment using ChARM ‐ did the HEW make the right choice of whether to treat (yes/no?)c | 256 | 98.8 | 97.5‐1.0 | 331 | 99.1 | 98.1‐1.0 |
| 10 | Correct course of treatment using ChARM and HEW's assessment of other symptoms (yes/no?)c | 56 | 93.3 | 87.0‐99.6 | 109 | 98.2 | 95.7‐1.0 |
| 11 | Correct referral using ChARM and HEW's assessment of other symptoms (yes/no?) | 5 | 62.5 | 29.0‐96.0 | 32 | 88.9 | 78.6‐99.2 |
| 1‐3 | Manufacturer instructions for use correctly performed (steps 1‐3)a | 164 | 62.6 | 56.7‐68.5 | 259 | 76.9 | 72.4‐81.4 |
| 4‐8 | WHO requirements to assess fast breathing correctly performed (steps 4‐8)a, b | 222 | 84.7 | 80.4‐89.1 | 318 | 94.4 | 91.9‐96.8 |
Based on two research assistants observing the HEW. Where two research assistants disagreed, most conservative estimate was used.
Based on comparison of the age group recorded on the screening checklist and the photograph of the ChARM with result displayed.
Based on two research assistants observing the HEW. Where two research assistants disagreed, the project manager verified through retrospective patient register review.
Step nos. 1‐7, 1‐3, 4‐8: N = 262 (observation 1) and 337 (observation 2)—children whose consultation started. Step nos. 8, 1‐8 and 9: N = 259 (observation 1) and N = 335 (observation 2)—children with RR classification with ChARM. Step no. 10 N = 60 (observation 1) and N = 11 (observation 2)—children with fast breathing. Step no. 11 N = 8 (observation 1) and 111 (observation 2)—children with fast breathing and a referral sign.