ObjectivesTo determine the pooled effectiveness and feasibility of telerehabilitation in patients with COVID-19.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct, PEDro, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to the end of March 2022.Eligibility criteria and outcomesRCTs investigating the effects of telerehabilitation in the management of patients with COVID-19 were included. The outcomes of interest were functional capacity, cardiopulmonary exercise tests, quality of life and other variables where data are available.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened, extracted data and performed methodological quality assessment independently. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager V.5.4 and Stata V.14.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Mean difference (MD) with 95% CI and the corresponding p value were used to determine the treatment effect between groups. A fixed-effect model was used for all variables as no significant heterogeneity was observed.ResultsFour studies with 334 patients with COVID-19 were included. The pooled result of telerehabilitation showed statistically significant improvement on 6-minute walking test (MD 75.50; 95% CI 54.69 to 96.30; p=0.48), 30-second sit-to-stand test (MD 1.76; 95% CI 1.47 to 2.04; p=0.30), Borg Scale (MD 2.49; 95% CI 2.16 to 2.83; p=0.28) and level of dyspnoea (MD 6.26; 95% CI 5.42 to 7.10; p=0.66). The overall treatment completion rate was 88.46%, and the most common reason for withdrawal after randomisation was lost to follow-up or uncooperativeness.ConclusionsThe findings showed that telerehabilitation interventions could improve functional capacity and exercise perception among patients affected by COVID-19 and can be implemented with a high completion rate and minimal adverse events. However, more studies are required to investigate the effects on cardiopulmonary function, quality of life, anxiety, depression and other variables.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021287975.

ObjectiveThis study intended to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on anxiety and stress among healthcare professionals in Ethiopia.DesignThis study applied a design of systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesEligibility criteria and outcomesObservational studies examining anxiety and stress among healthcare professionals in Ethiopia following COVID-19 pandemic were considered. The primary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety and stress and the secondary outcomes were factors associated to the prevalence of anxiety and stress.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors extracted the data and performed quality assessment independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. Random-effect model with the inverse variance method was used to estimate the pooled effect size of the outcome variables with its 95% CI. Publication bias was checked by DOI plot and Luis Furuya Kanamori index. Stata V.14.0 (StataCorp) software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsThirteen studies were included. From eight studies the pooled prevalence of anxiety was 46% (95% CI 0.30% to 0.61%, τ2=0.0497, I2=99.07%, p<0.001). Nine studies reported about stress and the pooled prevalence was 51% (95% CI 0.41% to 0.62%, τ2=0.0253, I2=97.85%, p<0.001)). Age, sex, marital status, working department, history of contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases and profession were associated factors for high level of anxiety and stress.ConclusionsCOVID-19 pandemic highly affects mental health of healthcare professionals in Ethiopia. Anxiety and stress were among reported mental health problems among healthcare professionals during the pandemic. Timely psychological counselling programmes should be applied for healthcare professionals to improve the general mental health problems.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022314865.

Introduction. Guidelines endorse to implement an integrated and multidisciplinary team approach in the management of people with Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, there is no net and clear finding that shows the supremacy of multidisciplinary team interventions over conventional interventions for people with PD. Therefore, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the supremacy of multidisciplinary interventions for people with PD. Methods. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were conducted. PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until May 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing multidisciplinary intervention with conventional physiotherapy were included. The outcome measures were gait balance, disability status, quality of life, and depression level. The PEDro scale was used to systematically appraise methodological quality. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and performed a quality assessment of included studies independently. Review Manager V.5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) software was used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics, and a standardized mean difference with 95% CI and P value was used to calculate the treatment effect for outcome variables. Results. A total of 6 studies with 1260 participants were included. The average PEDro methodological quality score was 6.67. No statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary and conventional rehabilitation on functional capacity (SMD: 0.69; 95% CI: −0.13, 1.51; P = 0.10 ), disability status (SMD: 0.65; 95% CI: −0.16, 1.46; P = 0.11 ), and quality of life (SMD: 0.28; 95% CI: −0.31, 0.59; P = 0.08 ) was found. However, there is a statistically significant improvement in caregivers' anxiety levels in the multidisciplinary group (SMD: 0.39; 95% CI 0.06, 1.73; P = 0.02 ). Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-analysis show no significant difference between multidisciplinary and conventional rehabilitation on functionality, disability, and quality of life. Caregivers' anxiety levels show improvement following multidisciplinary interventions. However, large-scale studies with long-term follow-up were required for concrete and clinical recommendations.

Background: Patients with COVID-19 will experience high levels of anxiety and depression and poor levels of sleep and quality of life (QoL) due to isolation treatment and uncertain outcomes. Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) exercises show promising treatment effects on mental health and sleep problems and overall QoL in COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PMR exercises in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Both experimental and non-experimental studies related to PMR and COVID-19 were systematically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro and HINARI databases for studies published from the occurrence of the pandemic to December 2022. Study selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction were carried out by 2 independent authors. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated for sleep quality, anxiety, depression, and QoL. The safety outcomes were evaluated based on adverse events reported. Review manager (RevMan 5.4, Cochrane collaboration) was used for the data analysis. Results: Four studies with 227 subjects were included in this systematic review. The pooled results indicated that PMR interventions improved the sleep quality score standardized mean difference (SMD): −0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.54, 0.07; P = .13, level of anxiety SMD: −1.35; 95% CI −2.38, −0.32; P = .01 compared to the usual care. Depression level, disease severity and QoL were also improved following PMR interventions. Only 1 study reported worsening of 1 patient clinical status while all other studies did not report any adverse events during the interventions. Conclusions: PMR interventions can improve the sleep quality, anxiety, depression, disease severity and QoL in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in a short-term period compared to the usual care. However, there was indecision about the safety and long-term effects of PMR.

IntroductionRespiratory rehabilitation is the use of exercise, education, and behavioural interventions to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life. Recent studies highlight that respiratory rehabilitation is effective and safe for patients with COVID-19. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of respiratory telerehabilitation on patients infected with COVID-19 by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisPubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases will be searched from inception to the end of November 2021. Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in the management of COVID-19 will be included. The primary outcomes will be functional capacity, cardiopulmonary exercise tests and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will include anxiety/depression level, sleep quality, mortality rate, completion rate, reason for withdrawal, adverse events, service satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and other potential factors. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data and perform quality assessment of included studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias. Review Manager V.5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) software will be used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity will be analysed using I² statistics. Mean difference or standardised mean difference with 95% CI and p value will be used to calculate treatment effect for outcome variables.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required because this systematic review and meta-analysis is based on previously published data. Final result will be published in peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and events.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021287975.