Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a guideline-recommended multifaceted intervention that improves the physical and psychological well-being of people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), though most of the evidence derives from trials in high-resource settings. In low- and middle-income countries, PR services are under-provided. We aimed to review the effectiveness, components and mode of delivery of PR in low-resource settings. Following Cochrane methodology, we systematically searched (1990 to October 2018; pre-publication update March 2020) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CABI, AMED, PUBMED, and CENTRAL for controlled clinical trials of adults with CRD (including but not restricted to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) comparing PR with usual care in low-resource settings. After duplicate selection, we extracted data on exercise tolerance, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), breathlessness, included components, and mode of delivery. We used Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) to assess study quality and synthesised data narratively. From 8912 hits, we included 13 studies: 11 were at high RoB; 2 at moderate RoB. PR improved functional exercise capacity in 10 studies, HRQoL in 12, and breathlessness in 9 studies. One of the two studies at moderate RoB showed no benefit. All programmes included exercise training; most provided education, chest physiotherapy, and breathing exercises. Low cost services, adapted to the setting, used limited equipment and typically combined outpatient/centre delivery with a home/community-based service. Multicomponent PR programmes can be delivered in low-resource settings, employing a range of modes of delivery. There is a need for a high-quality trial to confirm the positive findings of these high/moderate RoB studies.

Background Continuing medical education (CME) is essential to developing and maintaining high quality primary care. Traditionally, CME is delivered face-to-face, but due to geographical distances, and pressure of work in Bangladesh, general practitioners (GPs) are unable to relocate for several days to attend training. Using chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an exemplar, we aimed to assess the feasibility of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online) for GPs, and explore trainees’ and trainers’ perspectives towards the blended learning approach. Methods We used a mixed-methods design. We trained 49 GPs in two groups via blended (n = 25) and traditional face-to-face approach (n = 24) and assessed their post-course knowledge and skills. The COPD Physician Practice Assessment Questionnaire (COPD-PPAQ) was administered before and one-month post-course. Verbatim transcriptions of focus group discussions with 18 course attendees and interviews with three course trainers were translated into English and analysed thematically. Results Forty GPs completed the course (Blended: 19; Traditional: 21). The knowledge and skills post course, and the improvement in self-reported adherence to COPD guidelines was similar in both groups. Most participants preferred blended learning as it was more convenient than taking time out of their busy work life, and for many the online learning optimised the benefits of the subsequent face-to-face sessions. Suggested improvements included online interactivity with tutors, improved user friendliness of the e-learning platform, and timing face-to-face classes over weekends to avoid time-out of practice. Conclusions Quality improvement requires a multifaceted approach, but adequate knowledge and skills are core components. Blended learning is feasible and, with a few caveats, is an acceptable option to GPs in Bangladesh. This is timely, given that online learning with limited face-to-face contact is likely to become the norm in the on-going COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionDespite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care.Methods and analysisUsing 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionHome-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.

More than half of the people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The increasing disability, reduced productivity, associated anxiety and depression from CRDs result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a guideline-recommended multidisciplinary and multifaceted intervention that improves the physical and psychological condition of people with CRD. However, PR services are underprovided and uptake is poor in LMICs, especially in low-resourced setting. We aim to systematically assess the effectiveness, applicable components and mode of delivery of PR. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CABI, AMED and CENTRAL from January 1990 using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRD (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-tuberculosis, remodelled asthma); Intervention: PR; Comparator: usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and Health-Related Quality-of-Life; Setting: low-resource settings). Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for eligibility and extract data from included papers. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, rating the quality of evidence using GRADE. We will use narrative synthesis to answer our three objectives: What is the effectiveness of PR in low-resource settings? What components are used in effective studies? What models of service delivery are used? This systematic review will inform the potential impact and practical models of low-resource PR for the betterment of patients with CRDs to improve their substantial health-care burden and address poor quality of life.

IntroductionChronic 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 analysisWe 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 disseminationResearch 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 numberCRD42020220137.