The effects of digital health interventions for pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Aburub, Aseel ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2185-0859, Darabseh, Mohammad Z ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0535-0195, Badran, Rahaf ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6617-6063, Eilayyan, Owis, Shurrab, Ala’a M and Degens, Hans ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7399-4841 (2024) The effects of digital health interventions for pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Medicina, 60 (6). 963. ISSN 1648-9144

Preview

Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is the third most common cause of death globally. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes are important to reduce COPD symptoms and improve the quality of life of people with COPD. Digital health interventions have recently been adopted in PR programmes, which allow people with COPD to participate in such programmes with low barriers. The aim of this study is to review and discuss the reported effects of digital health interventions on PR outcomes in people with COPD. Materials and Methods: To achieve the study goals, a systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they met specified criteria. Two reviewers independently checked titles, abstracts, and performed full-text screening and data extraction. The quality assessment and risk of bias were performed in accordance with the PEDRO scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2, respectively. Results: Thirteen RCTs were included in this systematic review with 1525 participants with COPD. This systematic review showed the potential positive effect of digital health PR on the exercise capacity—measured by 6- and 12-min walking tests, pulmonary function, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life. There was no evidence for advantages of digital health PR in the improvement of anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy. Conclusions: Digital health PR is more effective than traditional PR in improving the pulmonary and physical outcomes for people with COPD, but there was no difference between the two PR programmes in improving the psychosocial outcomes. The certainty of the findings of this review is affected by the small number of included studies.