Introduction: Telehealth (TH) interventions with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) management were introduced in the literature more than 20 years ago with different labeling, but there was no summary for the overall acceptance and dropout rates as well as associated variables. Objective: This review aims to summarize the acceptance and dropout rates used in TH interventions and identify to what extent clinical settings, sociodemographic factors, and intervention factors might impact the overall acceptance and completion rates of TH interventions. Methods: We conducted a systematic search up to April 2021 on CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and Embase to retrieve randomized and non-randomized control trials that provide TH interventions alone or accompanied with other interventions to individuals with COPD. Results: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the unweighted average of acceptance and dropout rates for all included studies were 80% and 19%, respectively. A meta-analysis on the pooled difference between the acceptance rates and dropout rates (weighted by the sample size) revealed a significant difference in acceptance and dropout rates among all TH interventions 51% (95% CI 49% to 52; p < 0.001) and 63% (95% CI 60% to 67; p < 0.001), respectively. Analysis revealed that acceptance and dropout rates can be impacted by trial-related, sociodemographic, and intervention-related variables. The most common reasons for dropouts were technical difficulties (33%), followed by complicated system (31%). Conclusions: Current TH COPD interventions have a pooled acceptance rate of 51%, but this is accompanied by a high dropout rate of 63%. Acceptance and dropout levels in TH clinical trials can be affected by sociodemographic and intervention-related factors. This knowledge enlightens designs for well-accepted future TH clinical trials. PROSPERO registration number CRD4201707854.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable, and treatable condition, in which outcomes can be improved with careful management. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) comprises exercise and education, delivered by multidisciplinary teams. PR is a cost-effective management strategy in COPD patients which improves exercise performance, reduces dyspnea, reduces the risk of exacerbation, and improves health-related quality of life. All COPD patients appear to benefit irrespective of their baseline function, and PR has also been shown to be a clinically and cost-effective management approach following an acute exacerbation. COPD patients with greater disability and those recovering postexacerbation should be specifically targeted for PR. Due to limited current capacity, the latter group may not currently be able to benefit from PR. Therefore, there is a need for the wider implementation of PR services in Saudi Arabia, requiring us to address challenges including capacity and workforce competency.

Uptake of nutritional supplementation during pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been limited by an absence of rigorous evidence-based studies supporting use. Our objective were to report and summarise the current evidence supporting use of nutritional supplementation to improve outcomes during pulmonary rehabilitation in stable COPD patients. A systematic search was conducted up to May 7th, 2019 (registration number CRD42018089142). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Six databases were included: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online or MEDLARS Online (Medline), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. This systematic search generated 580 initial matches, of which 24 studies (1035 COPD participants) met the pre-specified criteria and were included. Our analysis does not confirm an impact of nutritional supplementation during PR, but studies, supplements and PR programmes were heterogeneous in nature. There is currently insufficient evidence on the effect of nutritional supplementation on improving outcomes during PR in patients with COPD. Therefore, controversy remains and further research is needed.

No abstract