Fulltext

Clinical effectiveness and components of Home-pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory diseases: a systematic review protocol

Uzzaman MN 1 , Chan SC 2 , Shunmugam RH 3 , Engkasan JP 2 , Agarwal D 4 , Habib GMM 1 Show all authors , Hanafi NS 2 , Jackson T 1 , Jebaraj P 5 , Khoo EM 2 , Liew SM 2 , Mirza FT 6 , Pinnock H 1 , Rabinovich RA 7

Affiliations 

  • 1 NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE), Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  • 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 3 Library, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 4 KEM Hospital and Research Centre, Pune, India
  • 5 Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
  • 6 Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 7 Respiratory Department, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK roberto.rabinovich@ed.ac.uk
BMJ Open, 2021 10 12;11(10):e050362.
PMID: 34642195 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050362

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Chronic 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 ANALYSIS: We 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 DISSEMINATION: Research 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 NUMBER: CRD42020220137.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications