Systematic review (protocol) of clinical effectiveness and models of care of low-resource pulmonary rehabilitation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Habib GMM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6450955 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a guideline-recommended multifaceted intervention that improves the physical and psychological well-being of people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), though most of the evidence derives from trials in high-resource settings. In low- and middle-income countries, PR services are under-provided. We aimed to review the effectiveness, components and mode of delivery of PR in low-resource settings. Following Cochrane methodology, we systematically searched (1990 to October 2018; pre-publication update March 2020) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CABI, AMED, PUBMED, and CENTRAL for controlled clinical trials of adults with CRD (including but not restricted to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) comparing PR with usual care in low-resource settings. After duplicate selection, we extracted data on exercise tolerance, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), breathlessness, included components, and mode of delivery. We used Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) to assess study quality and synthesised data narratively. From 8912 hits, we included 13 studies: 11 were at high RoB; 2 at moderate RoB. PR improved functional exercise capacity in 10 studies, HRQoL in 12, and breathlessness in 9 studies. One of the two studies at moderate RoB showed no benefit. All programmes included exercise training; most provided education, chest physiotherapy, and breathing exercises. Low cost services, adapted to the setting, used limited equipment and typically combined outpatient/centre delivery with a home/community-based service. Multicomponent PR programmes can be delivered in low-resource settings, employing a range of modes of delivery. There is a need for a high-quality trial to confirm the positive findings of these high/moderate RoB studies.
| S-EPMC7677536 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8513265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Substantial over-diagnosis and under-diagnosis of asthma in adults and children has recently been reported. As asthma is mostly diagnosed in non-specialist settings, a clinical prediction model (CPM) to aid the diagnosis of asthma in primary care may help improve diagnostic accuracy. We aim to systematically identify, describe, compare, and synthesise existing CPMs designed to support the diagnosis of asthma in children and adults presenting with symptoms suggestive of the disease, in primary care settings or equivalent populations. We will systematically search Medline, Embase and CINAHL from 1 January 1990 to present. Any CPM derived for use in a primary care population will be included. Equivalent populations in countries without a developed primary care service will also be included. The probability of asthma diagnosis will be the primary outcome. We will include CPMs designed for use in clinical practice to aid the diagnostic decision making of a healthcare professional during the assessment of an individual with symptoms suggestive of asthma. We will include derivation studies, and external model validation studies. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for eligibility and extract data from included papers. The CHARMS checklist (or PROBAST if available) will be used to assess risk of bias within each study. Results will be summarised by narrative synthesis with meta-analyses completed if possible. This systematic review will provide comprehensive information about existing CPMs for the diagnosis of asthma in primary care and will inform the development of a future diagnostic model.
| S-EPMC5959853 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC10777264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pneumoconiosis is characterised by diffuse fibrosis in lung tissue, and its incidence is on the rise. At present, there are limited therapeutic options for pneumoconiosis. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been widely used to treat pneumoconiosis?however, there is limited evidence concerning its efficacy. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review to investigate the efficacy and safety of PR for pneumoconiosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The following databases will be searched from their inception to 1 April 2019: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP and Wanfang Data. Randomised controlled trials of PR for pneumoconiosis will be included. Primary outcomes will include 6?min walk distance and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Study selection, extraction of data and assessment of study quality each will be independently undertaken. Statistical analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This systematic review will provide up-to-date information on PR for pneumoconiosis. The review does not require ethical approval and will be disseminated electronically through a peer-reviewed publication or conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018095266.
| S-EPMC6707706 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9039605 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5549363 | biostudies-other
Project description:Study Design:Systematic review. Objectives:To review the current literature on the treatment efficacy, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) for patients suffering from persistent (nonspecific) lower back pain (LBP) in relation to pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life, and work ability/sick leave. Methods:We carried out a systematic search of Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for English- and German-language literature published between January 2010 and July 2017. Study selection consisted of exclusion and inclusion phases. After screening for duplication, studies were excluded on the basis of criteria covering study design, number of participants, language of publication, and provision of information about the intervention. All the remaining articles dealing with the efficacy, utility, or cost-effectiveness of intensive (more than 25 hours per week) MBR encompassing at least 3 health domains and cognitive behavioral therapy-based psychological education were included. Results:The search retrieved 1199 publications of which 1116 were duplicates or met the exclusion criteria. Seventy of the remaining 83 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria; thus 13 studies were reviewed. All studies reporting changes in pain intensity or disability over 12 months after MBR reported moderate effect sizes and/or p-values for both outcomes. The effects on health-related quality of life were mixed, but MBR substantially reduced costs. Overall MBR produced an enduring improvement in work ability despite controversy and variable results. Conclusions:MBR is an effective treatment for nonspecific LBP, but there is room for improvement in cost-effectiveness and impact on sick leave, where the evidence was less compelling.
| S-EPMC6293434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Even though NCD disproportionally affects low-to-middle income countries, these countries including South Africa, often have limited capacity for the prevention and control of NCDs. The standard evidence-based care for the long-term management of NCDs includes rehabilitation. However, evidence for the effectiveness of rehabilitation for NCDs originates predominantly from high-income countries. Despite the disproportionate disease burden in low-resourced settings, and due to the complex context and constraints in these settings, the delivery and study of evidence-based rehabilitation treatment in a low-resource setting is poorly understood. This study aims to test the design, methodology and feasibility of a minimalistic, patient-centred, rehabilitation programme for patients with NCD specifically designed for and conducted in a low-resource setting.Methods and analysisStable patients with cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease and/or diabetes mellitus will be recruited over the course of 1?year from a provincial day hospital located in an urban, low-resourced setting (Bishop Lavis, Cape Town, South Africa). A postponed information model will be adopted to allocate patients to a 6-week, group-based, individualised, patient-centred rehabilitation programme consisting of multimodal exercise, exercise education and health education; or usual care (ie, no care). Outcomes include feasibility measures, treatment fidelity, functional capacity (eg, 6?min walking test), physical activity level, health-related quality of life and a patient-perspective economic evaluation. Outcomes are assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, postintervention and 8-week follow-up. Mixed-method analyses will be conducted to inform future research.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Health Research and Ethics Council, Stellenbosch University (M17/09/031). Information gathered in this research will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national and international conferences, as well as local stakeholders.Trial registration numberPACTR201807847711940; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6500351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the common types of interstitial lung disease having high prevalence and mortality worldwide. As a result of patient-centred hindering factors of adherence to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), home-based PR is an alternate mode of rehabilitating individuals with IPF. This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR on functional capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with IPF.MethodsClinically stable, high resolution computed tomography and physician diagnosed IPF participants having modified Medical Research Council score below 5 will be considered for the systematic review. Studies involving home-based PR as an intervention to treat individuals with IPF will be considered. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised studies (with two groups followed up) are eligible to be included. Outcomes of our interest are functional capacity (6-min walk distance, shuttle walk test and incremental shuttle walk test) and secondary outcome measure would include assessment of quality of life and adverse effects of intervention. Electronic databases such as SCOPUS, Medline (PubMed and Web of Science), PEDRo and CINAHL will be searched using database specific terms. Additionally, forward and backward citations of included studies will be searched to identify potential records. Two review authors, independently, will conduct the screening, data extraction using a customised standard tool, and critical appraisal using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool of included studies. If data permits, meta-analysis will be conducted. In case of substantial heterogeneity, we will do a narrative synthesis. Subgroup analysis will be undertaken based on various contextual and interventional factors.DiscussionThis review will provide comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR to physiotherapists, policy makers and researchers who are interested in IPF management. Findings from this review may guide the development and evaluation of more robust evidence based home-based PR that aimed to improve functional capacity among people with IPF.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020213883.
| S-EPMC8591795 | biostudies-literature