Methods: We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to identify global COPD research priorities.
Results: 62 experts contributed 230 research ideas, which were scored by 34 researchers according to six pre-defined criteria: answerability, effectiveness, feasibility, deliverability, burden reduction, and equity. The top-ranked research priority was the need for new effective strategies to support smoking cessation. Of the top 20 overall research priorities, six were focused on feasible and cost-effective pulmonary rehabilitation delivery and access, particularly in primary/community care and low-resource settings. Three of the top 10 overall priorities called for research on improved screening and accurate diagnostic methods for COPD in low-resource primary care settings. Further ideas that drew support involved a better understanding of risk factors for COPD, development of effective training programmes for health workers and physicians in low resource settings, and evaluation of novel interventions to encourage physical activity.
Conclusions: The experts agreed that the most pressing feasible research questions to address in the next decade for COPD reduction were on prevention, diagnosis and rehabilitation of COPD, especially in low resource settings. The largest gains should be expected in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) settings, as the large majority of COPD deaths occur in those settings. Research priorities identified by this systematic international process should inform and motivate policymakers, funders, and researchers to support and conduct research to reduce the global burden of COPD.
Methods: We administered relevant translations of the BOLD-1 questionnaire with additional questions from ECRHS-II, performed spirometry and arranged specialist clinical review for a sub-group to confirm the diagnosis. Using random sampling, we piloted a community-based survey at five sites in four LMICs and noted any practical barriers to conducting the survey. Three clinicians independently used information from questionnaires, spirometry and specialist reviews, and reached consensus on a clinical diagnosis. We used lasso regression to identify variables that predicted the clinical diagnoses and attempted to develop an algorithm for detecting asthma and COPD.
Results: Of 508 participants, 55.9% reported one or more chronic respiratory symptoms. The prevalence of asthma was 16.3%; COPD 4.5%; and 'other chronic respiratory disease' 3.0%. Based on consensus categorisation (n = 483 complete records), "Wheezing in last 12 months" and "Waking up with a feeling of tightness" were the strongest predictors for asthma. For COPD, age and spirometry results were the strongest predictors. Practical challenges included logistics (participant recruitment; researcher safety); misinterpretation of questions due to local dialects; and assuring quality spirometry in the field.
Conclusion: Detecting asthma in population surveys relies on symptoms and history. In contrast, spirometry and age were the best predictors of COPD. Logistical, language and spirometry-related challenges need to be addressed.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review to map prevalence surveys conducted in LMICs published between 1995 and 2018. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework. The search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus and included three domains: CRDs, prevalence and LMICs. After an initial title sift, eight trained reviewers undertook duplicate study selection and data extraction. We charted: country and populations, random sampling strategies, CRD definitions/phenotypes, survey procedure (questionnaires, spirometry, tests), outcomes and assessment of individual, societal and health service burden of disease.
Results: Of 36 872 citations, 281 articles were included: 132 from Asia (41 from China). Study designs were cross-sectional surveys (n = 260), cohort studies (n = 11) and secondary data analysis (n = 10). The number of respondents in these studies ranged from 50 to 512 891. Asthma was studied in 144 studies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 112. Most studies (100/144) based identification of asthma on symptom-based questionnaires. In contrast, COPD diagnosis was typically based on spirometry findings (94/112); 65 used fixed-ratio thresholds, 29 reported fixed-ratio and lower-limit-of-normal values. Only five articles used the term 'phenotype'. Most studies used questionnaires derived from validated surveys, most commonly the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (n = 47). The burden/impact of CRD was reported in 33 articles (most commonly activity limitation).
Conclusion: Surveys remain the most practical approach for estimating prevalence of CRD but there is a need to identify the most predictive questions for diagnosing asthma and to standardise diagnostic criteria.
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.
METHODS: We adopted the Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol and followed the Cochrane Rapid Review method to accelerate the review process, using the Implementation and Operation of Mobile Health projects framework and The Extended Technology Acceptance Model of Mobile Telephony to categorise the results. We conducted the review in four stages: (1) establishing value, (2) identifying digital health policy, (3) searching for evidence of infrastructure, design, and end-user adoption, (4) local input to interpret relevance and adoption factors. We used open-source national/international statistics such as the World Health Organization, International Telecommunication Union, Groupe Speciale Mobile, and local news/articles/government statistics to scope the current status, and systematically searched five databases for locally relevant exemplars.
RESULTS: We found 118 studies (2015-2021) and 114 supplementary online news articles and national statistics. Digital health policy was available in all countries, but scarce skilled labour, lack of legislation/interoperability support, and interrupted electricity and internet services were limitations. Older patients, women and those living in rural areas were least likely to have access to ICT infrastructure. Renewable energy has potential in enabling digital health care. Low usage mobile data and voice service packages are relatively affordable options for mHealth in the five countries.
CONCLUSIONS: Effective implementation of digital health technologies requires a supportive policy, stable electricity infrastructures, affordable mobile internet service, and good understanding of the socio-economic context in order to tailor the intervention such that it functional, accessible, feasible, user-friendly and trusted by the target users. We suggest a checklist of contextual factors that developers of digital health initiatives in LMICs should consider at an early stage in the development process.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: We identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32-1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.88--0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.25-0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.15-0.17; p=0.87).
CONCLUSION: Home-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.
METHODS: We recruited patients with CRDs from two hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia to a home-PR programme. Following centre-based assessment, patients performed the exercises at home (five sessions/week for eight weeks (total 40 sessions)). We monitored the patients via weekly telephone calls and asked about adherence to the programme. We measured functional exercise capacity (6-Minutes Walking Test (6MWT) and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) (COPD Assessment Test (CAT)) at baseline and post-PR at nine weeks. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 purposively sampled participants to explore views and feedback on the home-PR programme. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: We included 30 participants; two withdrew due to hospitalisation. Although 28 (93%) adhered to the full programme, only 11 (37%) attended the post-PR assessment because COVID-19 movement restrictions in Malaysia at that time prevented attendance at the centre. Four themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: involvement of family and caregivers, barriers to home-PR programme, interactions with peers and health care professionals, and programme enhancement.
CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the home-PR programme proved feasible for remote delivery, although centre-based post-PR assessments were not possible. Family involvement played an important role in the home-PR programme. The delivery of this programme can be further improved to maximise the benefit for patients.
METHODS: We recruited eligible adults from the Klang Asthma Cohort registry in primary care for a 3-month mixed-method study plus a 2-month extended observation. We collected baseline data on socio-demography, health literacy and asthma control level. The outcomes of the intervention were assessed at 1- and 3-month: i) adoption (app download and usage), ii) adherence (app usage), iii) retention (app usage in the observation period), iv) health outcomes (e.g., severe asthma attacks) and v) process outcomes (e.g., ownership and use of action plans). At 1-month, participants were purposively sampled for in-depth interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed deductively.
RESULTS: We recruited 48 participants; 35 participants (23 Female; median age = 43 years; median HLS score = 28) completed the 3 months study. Of these, 14 participants (10 Female; median age = 48 years; median HLS score = 28) provided interviews. Thirty-seven (77%) participants adopted the app (downloaded and used it in the first month of the study). The main factor reported as influencing adoption was the ease of using the app. A total of 950 app usage were captured during the 3-month feasibility study. App usage increased gradually, peaking at month 2 (355 total log-ins) accounting for 78% of users. In month 5, 51.4% of the participants used the app at least once. The main factors influencing continued use included adherence features (e.g., prompts and reminders), familiarity with app function and support from family members.
CONCLUSIONS: An asthma self-management app intervention was acceptable for adults with limited health literacy and it was feasible to collect the desired outcomes at different time points during the study. A future trial is warranted to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the intervention and to explore implementation strategies.
DESIGN: This is a qualitative study conducted among children with asthma and their parents. We used purposive sampling and conducted focus groups and interviews using a semi-structured topic guide in the participants' preferred language. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo and analysed using a grounded theory approach.
SETTINGS: We identified children aged 7-12 years with parent-reported, physician-diagnosed asthma from seven suburban primary schools in Malaysia. Focus groups and interviews were conducted either at schools or a health centre.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine participants (46 caregivers, 53 children) contributed to 24 focus groups and 6 individual interviews. Children mirrored their parents' management of asthma but, in parallel, learnt and gained confidence to independently self-manage asthma from their own experiences and self-experimentation. Increasing independence was more apparent in children aged 10 years and above. Cultural norms and beliefs influenced children's independence to self-manage asthma either directly or indirectly through their social network. External influences, for example, support from school and healthcare, also played a role in the transition.
CONCLUSION: Children learnt the skills to self-manage asthma as early as 7 years old with growing independence from the age of 10 years. Healthcare professionals should use child-centred approach and involve schools to facilitate asthma self-management and support a smooth transition to independent self-management.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-15-1242-26898).