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.

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.

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.