Current Perspectives and Future Directions of Repeat Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programmes in People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Renae J McNamara, Marita T Dale, L. Spencer
{"title":"Current Perspectives and Future Directions of Repeat Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programmes in People with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review of the Literature","authors":"Renae J McNamara, Marita T Dale, L. Spencer","doi":"10.33590/emjrespir/10031579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) diminish over 12–24 months following programme completion. A repeat PR programme may potentially prevent or reverse this decline in gains and may provide additional benefits. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss the current available evidence regarding repeat PR programmes and provide perspectives on unresolved questions, future areas of inquiry, and suggestions for clinical practice. Randomised controlled trials showed PR repeated at 6, 12, or 24 months after the initial PR programme resulted in similar short-term improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life; however, they did not result in long-term benefits beyond 12–24 months. In uncontrolled studies, the improvements in exercise capacity achieved following repeat PR were of a smaller magnitude than after the initial PR programme, but the improvements were still clinically significant. There is limited evidence to guide the optimal timing and characteristics of a repeat PR programme, such as frequency, duration and content, as well as which patients may benefit. There are ethical factors to consider in offering repeat PR programmes, including availability and access, the impact on resources and capacity of PR programmes, and patient-related factors such as financial burden and difficulties with transport. Alternate means of delivering a repeat PR programme should be explored, especially with emerging evidence for home-based PR and telerehabilitation programmes. A modular approach to a repeat PR programme by offering only certain elements rather than a comprehensive programme may also address the aspects of access, resources, capacity, and patient burden.","PeriodicalId":300382,"journal":{"name":"EMJ Respiratory","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EMJ Respiratory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33590/emjrespir/10031579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) diminish over 12–24 months following programme completion. A repeat PR programme may potentially prevent or reverse this decline in gains and may provide additional benefits. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss the current available evidence regarding repeat PR programmes and provide perspectives on unresolved questions, future areas of inquiry, and suggestions for clinical practice. Randomised controlled trials showed PR repeated at 6, 12, or 24 months after the initial PR programme resulted in similar short-term improvements in exercise capacity and quality of life; however, they did not result in long-term benefits beyond 12–24 months. In uncontrolled studies, the improvements in exercise capacity achieved following repeat PR were of a smaller magnitude than after the initial PR programme, but the improvements were still clinically significant. There is limited evidence to guide the optimal timing and characteristics of a repeat PR programme, such as frequency, duration and content, as well as which patients may benefit. There are ethical factors to consider in offering repeat PR programmes, including availability and access, the impact on resources and capacity of PR programmes, and patient-related factors such as financial burden and difficulties with transport. Alternate means of delivering a repeat PR programme should be explored, especially with emerging evidence for home-based PR and telerehabilitation programmes. A modular approach to a repeat PR programme by offering only certain elements rather than a comprehensive programme may also address the aspects of access, resources, capacity, and patient burden.
慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者重复肺康复方案的当前观点和未来方向:文献综述
肺康复(PR)的益处在项目完成后的12-24个月内逐渐减少。一个重复的公关计划可能潜在地防止或扭转这种收益的下降,并可能提供额外的好处。这篇叙述性综述的目的是讨论目前关于重复PR计划的现有证据,并就未解决的问题、未来的研究领域和临床实践建议提供观点。随机对照试验显示,在最初的PR计划后6个月、12个月或24个月重复PR,在运动能力和生活质量方面产生了类似的短期改善;然而,它们并没有产生超过12-24个月的长期效益。在非对照研究中,重复PR后运动能力的改善比最初PR计划后的改善幅度要小,但改善仍然具有临床意义。指导重复PR方案的最佳时机和特征的证据有限,例如频率、持续时间和内容,以及哪些患者可能受益。在提供重复的公共关系规划时需要考虑道德因素,包括可获得性和可及性、对公共关系规划资源和能力的影响,以及与患者有关的因素,如经济负担和交通困难。应当探索提供重复公共关系方案的替代方法,特别是有了以家庭为基础的公共关系和远程康复方案的新证据。通过只提供某些要素而不是全面规划,对重复公关规划采取模块化方法,也可以解决获取、资源、能力和患者负担等方面的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信