Dataset Information

Systematic review (protocol) of clinical effectiveness and models of care of low-resource pulmonary rehabilitation.

ABSTRACT: More than half of the people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The increasing disability, reduced productivity, associated anxiety and depression from CRDs result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a guideline-recommended multidisciplinary and multifaceted intervention that improves the physical and psychological condition of people with CRD. However, PR services are underprovided and uptake is poor in LMICs, especially in low-resourced setting. We aim to systematically assess the effectiveness, applicable components and mode of delivery of PR. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CABI, AMED and CENTRAL from January 1990 using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRD (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-tuberculosis, remodelled asthma); Intervention: PR; Comparator: usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and Health-Related Quality-of-Life; Setting: low-resource settings). Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for eligibility and extract data from included papers. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, rating the quality of evidence using GRADE. We will use narrative synthesis to answer our three objectives: What is the effectiveness of PR in low-resource settings? What components are used in effective studies? What models of service delivery are used? This systematic review will inform the potential impact and practical models of low-resource PR for the betterment of patients with CRDs to improve their substantial health-care burden and address poor quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Habib GMM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6450955 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review (protocol) of clinical effectiveness and models of care of low-resource pulmonary rehabilitation.

Habib G M Monsur GMM Rabinovich Roberto R Divgi Kalyani K Ahmed Salahuddin S Saha Samir Kumar SK Singh Sally S Uddin Aftab A Pinnock Hilary H

NPJ primary care respiratory medicine 20190405 1

More than half of the people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The increasing disability, reduced productivity, associated anxiety and depression from CRDs result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a guideline-recommended multidisciplinary and multifaceted intervention that improves the physical and psychological condition of people with CRD. However, PR services are ...[more]

PMID: 30952884

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR?Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020220137.

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the cornerstone of nonpharmacological treatments in chronic respiratory disease (CRD) management. PR can be performed in different settings, the most frequent of which are inpatient (inPR) and outpatient (outPR) management. In the literature, these two distinct modalities are generally considered to be the same intervention. Yet, they differ in terms of the length of stay, social support, and the time the patient is not in their normal environment, and the presumed absence of differences in terms of efficacy has never been established.PurposeTo identify studies that directly compared the effects of inPR and outPR on patients with all types of CRDs through a systematic review and to synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness comparison of both modalities.MethodsA literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on 24 March 2022. The inclusion criteria were: articles with adults with chronic respiratory disease and comparing inPR versus outPR in at least one PR outcome.ResultsSeven hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved from the databases. Six retrospective articles met the inclusion criteria. A best-evidence synthesis (BES) was carried out. Eight outcomes could be found in the included papers. For healthcare burden and refusals, no data could be extracted, and thus no BES was performed. For the eight remaining outcomes, two results were in favor of inPR with moderate evidence (HRQoL and psychological status), three were in favor of no difference between inPR and outPR with moderate or limited evidence (muscle strength, dropouts/adherence, and survival status), and three led to conflicting results (exercise tolerance, dyspnea, and economic costs).ConclusionWith the current state of knowledge, the majority of the studies converge towards an absence of differences between inPR and outPR or in favor of inPR for seven out of eight outcomes, albeit with moderate, limited, or conflicting evidence. The greater effectiveness of inPR for some outcomes will have to be confirmed in a well-designed RCT in order to orient public health policies in terms of the development of PR with the best evidence-based medicine approach.Trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020166546 .

Project description:Care transitions from the hospital to home are critical to the sustainability of our health care system. Ineffective care transitions can be caused by high incidences of post-discharge adverse events, by poor communication with patients, and/or by inadequate information transfer between providers from the hospital to home. Any one of these can lead to fragmented care, high readmission rates, increased visits to the emergency department, and ultimately poor patient outcomes. Despite the ongoing improvement efforts of health care organizations, the efficacy of person- and family-centered care transition interventions on the quality of care and on the patient experience are not known. The aim of this systematic review is to critically analyze the body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of person- and family-centered care transition interventions on the quality of care, and the experience of patients.We will conduct a systematic review using the Cochrane Handbook's guidelines and will adhere to a standardized reporting format: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. Following a two-step screening process, data including the full reference, objectives, target population, description of the intervention and control intervention, outcome measures, design, length of post-intervention follow-up period, and the study results will be extracted, synthesized, and reported. Risk of bias and quality of the studies will also be assessed.This systematic review will summarize and present the evidence base for person- and family-centered care transition interventions. This review will also inform further research and will lay the groundwork for more empirical studies on person- and family-centered care transitions. Specifically, the results of this systematic review may inform the development of measures to monitor safe and effective person- and family-centered transitions from the hospital to home. These results may also be important for policy makers, decision-makers, clinicians, and patients/families who are involved in navigating the health care system.PROSPERO CRD42017067990.

Project description:ImportanceWhile effective, cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) as traditionally delivered is not well implemented in lower-resource settings.ObjectiveTo test the noninferiority of hybrid CR compared with traditional CR in terms of cardiovascular events.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic, multicenter, parallel arm, open-label randomized clinical trial (the Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Trial [HYCARET]) with blinded outcome assessment was conducted at 6 referral centers in Chile. Adults aged 18 years or older who had a cardiovascular event or procedure, no contraindications to exercise, and access to a mobile telephone were eligible and recruited between April 1, 2019, and March 15, 2020, with follow-up until July 29, 2021.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 1:1 in permuted blocks to the experimental arm, which received 10 center-based supervised exercise sessions plus counseling in 4 to 6 weeks and then were supported at home via telephone calls and text messages through weeks 8 to 12, or the control arm, which received the standard CR of 18 to 22 sessions with exercises and education in 8 to 12 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was cardiovascular events or mortality. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, return to work, and lifestyle behaviors measured with validated questionnaires; muscle strength and functional capacity, measured through physical tests; and program adherence and exercise-related adverse events, assessed using checklists.ResultsA total of 191 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 58.74 [9.80] years; 145 [75.92%] male); 93 were assigned to hybrid CR and 98 to standard CR. At 1 year, events had occurred in 5 unique participants in the hybrid CR group (5.38%) and 9 in the standard CR group (9.18%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the hybrid CR group had 3.80% (95% CI, -11.13% to 3.52%) fewer cardiovascular events than the standard CR group, and relative risk was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.20-1.68) for the primary outcome. In the per-protocol analysis at different levels of adherence to the intervention, all 95% CIs crossed the noninferiority boundary (eg, 20% adherence: absolute risk difference, -0.35% [95% CI, -7.56% to 6.85%]; 80% adherence: absolute risk difference, 3.30% [95% CI, -3.70% to 10.31%]). No between-group differences were found for secondary outcomes except adherence to supervised CR sessions (79.14% [736 of 930 supervised sessions] in the hybrid CR group vs 61.46% [1201 of 1954 sessions] in the standard CR group).Conclusions and relevanceThe results suggest that a hybrid CR program is noninferior to standard center-based CR in a low-resource setting, primarily in terms of recurrent cardiovascular events and potentially in terms of intermediate outcomes. Hybrid CR may induce superior adherence to supervised exercise. Clinical factors and patient preferences should inform CR model allocation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03881150.

Project description:BackgroundLingering symptoms after acute COVID-19 present a major challenge to ambulatory care services. Since there are reservations regarding their optimal management, we aimed to collate all available evidence on the effects of rehabilitation treatments applicable in ambulatory care for these patients.MethodsOn 9 May 2022, we systematically searched articles in COVID-19 collections, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PEDro, and EuropePMC. References were eligible if they reported on the clinical effectiveness of a rehabilitation therapy applicable in ambulatory care for adult patients with persisting symptoms continuing 4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the CASP cohort study checklist and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Summary of Findings tables were constructed and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.ResultsWe included 38 studies comprising 2,790 participants. Physical training and breathing exercises may reduce fatigue, dyspnoea, and chest pain and may improve physical capacity and quality of life, but the evidence is very weak (based on 6 RCTs and 12 cohort studies). The evidence underpinning the effect of nutritional supplements on fatigue, dyspnoea, muscle pain, sensory function, psychological well-being, quality of life, and functional capacity is very poor (based on 4 RCTs). Also, the evidence-base is very weak about the effect of olfactory training on sensory function and quality of life (based on 4 RCTs and 3 cohort studies). Multidisciplinary treatment may have beneficial effects on fatigue, dyspnoea, physical capacity, pulmonary function, quality of life, return to daily life activities, and functional capacity, but the evidence is very weak (based on 5 cohort studies). The certainty of evidence is very low due to study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.ConclusionsPhysical training, breathing exercises, olfactory training and multidisciplinary treatment can be effective rehabilitation therapies for patients with persisting symptoms after COVID-19, still with high uncertainty regarding these effects. These findings can guide ambulatory care practitioners to treat these patients and should be incorporated in clinical practice guidelines. High-quality studies are needed to confirm our hypotheses and should report on adverse events.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is considered a key component in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, uptake remains suboptimal. This systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of home-based PR (HBPR) programs for COPD patients.MethodsA systematic review of scholarly literature published within the last 10 years from the conception of this project was conducted using internationally recognized guidelines. Search strategies were applied to electronic databases and clinical trial registries through March 2020 and updated in November 2021 to identify studies comparing HBPR with 'usual care' or outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (OPR). To critically appraise randomized studies, the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (ROB) was used. The quality of non-randomized studies was evaluated using the ACROBAT-NRSI tool. The quality of evidence relating to key outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exacerbation frequencies, COPD-related hospital admissions, and program adherence. Three independent reviewers assessed methodologic quality and reviewed the studies.ResultsTwelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 comparative observational studies were included. While considerable evidence relating to the effectiveness of HBPR programs for COPD patients exist, overall quality is low. There were no differences between HBPR and OPR in terms of safety, HRQoL, functional exercise capacity and health care resource utilization. Compared to usual care, functional exercise capacity seemed to significantly improve after HBPR. While patient compliance with HBPR is good, two factors appeared to increase the 'risk' of non-compliance: expectations of patients to 1) complete daily diaries/activity logs and 2) engage in solely unsupervised exercise sessions.ConclusionThe overall quality for most outcomes was low to very low; however, HBPR seems to offer comparable short-term benefits to OPR.

Dataset Information

Systematic review (protocol) of clinical effectiveness and models of care of low-resource pulmonary rehabilitation.

Publications

Systematic review (protocol) of clinical effectiveness and models of care of low-resource pulmonary rehabilitation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets