Narelle S Cox1,2, Simone Dal Corso3, Henrik Hansen4, Christine F McDonald1,5,6, Catherine J Hill1,7, Paolo Zanaboni8,9, Jennifer A Alison10,11, Paul O'Halloran12, Heather Macdonald13, Anne E Holland1,14,2. 1. Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Allergy, Clinical Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Nove de Julho University, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Respiratory Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 9. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 10. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 11. Allied Health Research and Education Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. 12. School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 13. Community Rehabilitation, Wimmera Health Care Group, Horsham, Australia. 14. Physiotherapy, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.
Authors: Anne E Holland; Martijn A Spruit; Thierry Troosters; Milo A Puhan; Véronique Pepin; Didier Saey; Meredith C McCormack; Brian W Carlin; Frank C Sciurba; Fabio Pitta; Jack Wanger; Neil MacIntyre; David A Kaminsky; Bruce H Culver; Susan M Revill; Nidia A Hernandes; Vasileios Andrianopoulos; Carlos Augusto Camillo; Katy E Mitchell; Annemarie L Lee; Catherine J Hill; Sally J Singh Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: G Segrelles Calvo; C Gómez-Suárez; J B Soriano; E Zamora; A Gónzalez-Gamarra; M González-Béjar; A Jordán; E Tadeo; A Sebastián; G Fernández; J Ancochea Journal: Respir Med Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Simon Bourne; Ruth DeVos; Malcolm North; Anoop Chauhan; Ben Green; Thomas Brown; Victoria Cornelius; Tom Wilkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Narelle S Cox; Christine F McDonald; Jennifer A Alison; Ajay Mahal; Richard Wootton; Catherine J Hill; Janet Bondarenko; Heather Macdonald; Paul O'Halloran; Paolo Zanaboni; Ken Clarke; Deidre Rennick; Kaye Borgelt; Angela T Burge; Aroub Lahham; Bruna Wageck; Hayley Crute; Pawel Czupryn; Amanda Nichols; Anne E Holland Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Charlotte C Poot; Eline Meijer; Annemarije L Kruis; Nynke Smidt; Niels H Chavannes; Persijn J Honkoop Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-08
Authors: Surya P Bhatt; Daniel Baugh; Jason Hitchcock; Young-Il Kim; Gary Cutter; Inmaculada Aban; Mark T Dransfield Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-02
Authors: Anne E Holland; Narelle S Cox; Linzy Houchen-Wolloff; Carolyn L Rochester; Chris Garvey; Richard ZuWallack; Linda Nici; Trina Limberg; Suzanne C Lareau; Barbara P Yawn; Mary Galwicki; Thierry Troosters; Michael Steiner; Richard Casaburi; Enrico Clini; Roger S Goldstein; Sally J Singh Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-05
Authors: Adam Lewis; Ellena Knight; Matthew Bland; Jack Middleton; Esther Mitchell; Kate McCrum; Joy Conway; Elaine Bevan-Smith Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2021-03