Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease.
Austin Authors: Cox, Narelle S ;Dal Corso, Simone;Hansen, Henrik;McDonald, Christine F ;Hill, Catherine J ;Zanaboni, Paolo;Alison, Jennifer A;O'Halloran, Paul;Macdonald, Heather;Holland, Anne E 
Affiliation: School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Nove de Julho University, São Paulo, Brazil
Respiratory and Sleep Medicine
Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Community Rehabilitation, Wimmera Health Care Group, Horsham, Australia
Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
Discipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Allied Health Research and Education Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia
Institute for Breathing and Sleep
Physiotherapy, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
Allergy, Clinical Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Respiratory Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
Issue Date: 29-Jan-2021 2021-01-29
Publication information: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021; 1: CD013040
Abstract: 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. To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013040.pub2
PubMed URL: 33511633
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on May 8, 2021

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.