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).

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.

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.