Dataset Information

Interventions to increase referral and uptake to pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) reduces the number and duration of hospital admissions and readmissions, and improves health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. Despite clinical guideline recommendations, under-referral and limited uptake to PR contribute to poor treatment access. We reviewed published literature on the effectiveness of interventions to improve referral to and uptake of PR in patients with COPD when compared to standard care, alternative interventions, or no intervention. The review followed recognized methods. Search terms included "pulmonary rehabilitation" AND "referral" OR "uptake" applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, BNI, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full papers were reviewed independently and quality appraised. The protocol was registered (PROSPERO # 2016:CRD42016043762). We screened 5,328 references. Fourteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Ten assessed referral and five assessed uptake (46,146 patients, 409 clinicians, 82 hospital departments, 122 general practices). One was a systematic review which assessed uptake. Designs, interventions, and scope of studies were diverse, often part of multifaceted evidence-based management of COPD. Examples included computer-based prompts at practice nurse review, patient information, clinician education, and financial incentives. Four studies reported statistically significant improvements in referral (range 3.5%-36%). Two studies reported statistically significant increases in uptake (range 18%-21.5%). Most studies had methodological and reporting limitations. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of study designs. This review demonstrates the range of approaches aimed at increasing referral and uptake to PR but identifies limited evidence of effectiveness due to the heterogeneity and limitations of study designs. Research using robust methods with clear descriptions of intervention, setting, and target population is required to optimize access to PR across a range of settings.

SUBMITTER: Early F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6214582 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions to increase referral and uptake to pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review.

Early Frances F Wellwood Ian I Kuhn Isla I Deaton Christi C Fuld Jonathan J

International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 20181029

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) reduces the number and duration of hospital admissions and readmissions, and improves health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. Despite clinical guideline recommendations, under-referral and limited uptake to PR contribute to poor treatment access. We reviewed published literature on the effectiveness of interventions to improve referral to and uptake of PR in patients with COPD when compared to standard care, alternative interventions, or no interventio ...[more]

PMID: 30464439

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation is an effective intervention for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). People with COPD undertake repeat programs, but synthesis of evidence regarding such practice has not been undertaken. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the effects of repeating pulmonary rehabilitation subsequent to an initial program in people with COPD.MethodsStudies where participants with COPD undertook >1 pulmonary rehabilitation program were included, incorporating RCT (randomized controlled trial) and non-randomized studies. Electronic database searches were undertaken. Two authors independently undertook study identification, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQoL); secondary outcomes were exercise capacity, hospitalizations and exacerbations, adherence, mortality and adverse events. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for clinically heterogeneous trials. Data from RCTs and non-randomized studies were not combined for analysis.ResultsTen included studies (2 RCTs) involved 907 participants with COPD (n=653 had undertaken >1 program). The majority of studies were at high risk of bias. One RCT (n=33) reported no difference in HRQol after a repeat program vs usual care following exacerbation (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain score MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.5 to 3). In stable patients, clinically important and statistically significant improvements in HRQoL and exercise capacity were reported after repeat programs, but of a smaller magnitude than initial programs. There was evidence for reductions in exacerbations and hospitalizations, and shorter hospital length of stay for patients who repeated a program twice in 12 months compared to those who repeated once. No data for mortality or adverse events were available.ConclusionThis systematic review provides limited evidence for benefits of repeating pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD, including improved HRQoL and exercise capacity, and reduced hospitalizations. However, most studies have high risk of bias, which reduces the certainty of these conclusions.Study registrationPROSPERO (CRD42020215093).

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.

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR), delivered as a supervised multidisciplinary program including exercise training, is one of the cornerstones in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect on mortality of a supervised early PR program, initiated during or within 4 weeks after hospitalization with an acute exacerbation of COPD compared with usual post-exacerbation care or no PR program. Secondary outcomes were days in hospital, COPD related readmissions, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity (walking distance), activities of daily living (ADL), fall risk and drop-out rate.MethodsWe identified randomized trials through a systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cocharne Library and other sources through October 2017. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.ResultsWe included 13 randomized trials (801 participants). Our meta-analyses showed a clinically relevant reduction in mortality after early PR (4 trials, 319 patients; RR = 0.58 (95% CI: [0.35 to 0.98])) and at the longest follow-up (3 trials, 127 patients; RR = 0.55 (95% CI: [0.12 to 2.57])). Early PR reduced number of days in hospital by 4.27 days (1 trial, 180 patients; 95% CI: [- 6.85 to - 1.69]) and hospital readmissions (6 trials, 319 patients; RR = 0.47 (95% CI: [0.29 to 0.75])). Moreover, early PR improved HRQoL and walking distance, and did not affect drop-out rate. Several of the trials had unclear risk of bias in regard to the randomization and blinding, for some outcome there was also a lack of power.ConclusionModerate quality of evidence showed reductions in mortality, number of days in hospital and number of readmissions after early PR in patients hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation. Long-term effects on mortality were not statistically significant, but improvements in HRQoL and exercise capacity appeared to be maintained for at least 12 months. Therefore, we recommend early supervised PR to patients with COPD-related exacerbations. PR should be initiated during hospital admission or within 4 weeks after hospital discharge.

Project description:IntroductionChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease associated with breathlessness, inability to exercise, frequent infections, hospitalisation and reduced quality of life. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), providing supervised exercise and education, is an effective and cost-effective treatment for COPD but is significantly underused. Interventions to improve referral and uptake have been tested and some positive results reported. However, interventions are diverse and no clear recommendations for practice can be made. This study aims to understand the challenges to referral and uptake in primary care, where most referrals originate, and to develop a flexible toolkit of resources to support referral and uptake to PR in primary care in the UK.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed methods study informed by normalisation process theory and burden of treatment theory. In the first phase, general practitioners, practice nurses and PR providers will be invited to complete an online survey to inform a broad exploration of the topic areas. In phase 2 interviews and focus groups will be conducted with patients, healthcare professionals (HCP) in primary care, PR providers and commissioners to gain an in-depth understanding of the issues and needs. Toolkit development in phase 3 will draw together the learning from phases 1 and 2 and employ an iterative development process to build the toolkit jointly with patients and HCPs. It will be tested in primary care for usability and acceptability.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical and Health Research Authority approval (Research Ethics Committee reference number 17/EE/0136). It is registered with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study Number (ISRCTN) registry (trial ID: ISRCTN20669629, assignment date 20 March 2018, trial start date 1 April 2016). Dissemination will be aimed at patients, carers/families, service providers, commissioners and national interest groups. Methods will include conferences, presentations, academic publications and plain English reports and will be supported by the British Lung Foundation.Trial registration numberISRCTN20669629 ; Pre-results.

Project description:Numerous intervention studies have attempted to increase cervical screening uptake among immigrant women, nonetheless their screening participation remains low. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarise the evidence on interventions to improve cervical screening among immigrant women globally and identify their effectiveness. Databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception to October 12, 2021, for intervention studies, including randomised and clinical controlled trials (RCT, CCT) and one and two group pre-post studies. Peer-reviewed studies involving immigrant and refugee women, in community and clinical settings, were eligible. Comparator interventions were usual or minimal care or attention control. Data extraction, quality appraisal and risk of bias were assessed by two authors independently using COVIDENCE software. Narrative synthesis of findings was carried out, with the main outcome measure defined as the cervical screening uptake rate difference pre- and post-intervention followed by random effects meta-analysis of trials and two group pre-post studies, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, to calculate pooled rate ratios and adjustment for publication bias, where found. The protocol followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42020192341). 1,900 studies were identified, of which 42 (21 RCTS, 4 CCTs, and 16 pre-post studies) with 44,224 participants, were included in the systematic review, and 28 with 35,495 participants in the meta-analysis. Overall, the uptake difference rate for interventions ranged from -6.7 to 96%. Meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled rate ratio of 1.15 (95% CI 1.03-1.29), with high heterogeneity. Culturally sensitive, multicomponent interventions, using different modes of information delivery and self-sampling modality were most promising. Interventions led to at least 15% increase in cervical screening participation among immigrant women. Interventions designed to overcome logistical barriers and use multiple channels to communicate culturally appropriate health promotion messages are most effective at achieving cervical screening uptake among immigrant women.

Project description:Introduction: Oxidative stress is increasingly recognized as a significant factor in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Pulmonary rehabilitation, a major component of which is prescribed exercise, is essential in COPD care. Regular exercise has been proposed to increase antioxidant defenses and overall enhance the ability of the body to counteract oxidative stress. However, the mechanisms through which it improves COPD outcomes remain unclear. Objectives: We aimed to appraise the current evidence around the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation on redox status, compared with other exercise interventions, to gain an understanding of optimal exercise interventions to modify this pathophysiological mechanism. Methods: We performed a systematic review through searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Results were independently reviewed and relevant studies were selected by two independent assessors. Studies were assessed by two independent people using the modified RoB 2 tool and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Results: We identified 1,710 records and 1,117 records after duplicate removal. Six studies were included in the final analysis. The evidence available was low quality and four studies had high risk of bias and two studies had unclear risk of bias. Studies were small (15-56 participants); only two included details of randomization and patient cohorts were of varying ages and poorly described. Differences in smoking status and previous exercise levels, which are known to impact redox status, were not well documented. Studies were not standardized and used different exercise doses and measured different outcomes. One study reported lower malondialdehyde levels, a marker of lipid peroxidation, after pulmonary rehabilitation, compared with control. However, one study saw no difference following whole-body vibration training and another study showed higher malondialdehyde levels following supervised modified arm swing exercise compared with control. Conclusion: Understanding the impact of exercise on oxidative stress in COPD could lead to tailored exercise programs and modification of pathological mechanisms. However, we identify a lack of high-quality evidence to determine this. Larger, standardized, and high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential, which use carefully clinically characterized and controlled cohorts to determine the relative impact of different exercise interventions on redox status to guide COPD management. We propose an idealized RCT design, which could be used to try and meet this need.

Dataset Information

Interventions to increase referral and uptake to pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review.

Publications

Interventions to increase referral and uptake to pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets