Delivery of Remote Pulmonary Rehabilitation: COVID-19 Service Evaluation in England.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
James Ellis, Gill Gilworth, Toby Morgan, Katherine Harris, Natalie King, Patrick White
{"title":"Delivery of Remote Pulmonary Rehabilitation: COVID-19 Service Evaluation in England.","authors":"James Ellis, Gill Gilworth, Toby Morgan, Katherine Harris, Natalie King, Patrick White","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S488183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent evidence suggests that remote pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) meeting international criteria may be as effective as traditional in-person PR. During social distancing associated with COVID-19, in-person PR services were suspended in England. We assessed the use of remote PR services during COVID-19 social distancing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online questionnaire survey to assess the use of remote PR during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent availability and delivery of remote PR in England was conducted. The characteristics of PR services in England that provided remote PR, and the barriers and facilitators of delivery of remote online PR by videoconferencing were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-three services took part. Provision of remote PR rose from 17% to 95% for participating PR services during the pandemic. Remote PR was provided by telephone (65% of services), group videoconferencing (56%) and by individual patient videoconferencing (51%). Remote PR continued to be provided by 49 (76%) services following the relaxation of COVID-19-related restrictions on social contact. Barriers to the delivery of remote online PR using videoconferencing included patients' lack of internet access through inability to use smart phones or computers and perceived preference of patients for in-person provision. Perceived facilitators of remote online PR using videoconferencing were ease of staff delivery and the belief that it would be beneficial to patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Remote PR was widely used during the social distancing phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Service users' lack of access to the internet was an important barrier to videoconferencing, the form of remote online PR for which evidence of effectiveness is most compelling. The provision of digital equipment and internet training should be considered to enable more equitable access to remote online PR. Despite no guideline recommendations for its utility at present, remote pulmonary rehabilitation via telephone or online videoconferencing appears to be a safe and feasible alternative when in-person pulmonary rehabilitation is unavailable.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"20 ","pages":"533-538"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11890304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S488183","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent evidence suggests that remote pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) meeting international criteria may be as effective as traditional in-person PR. During social distancing associated with COVID-19, in-person PR services were suspended in England. We assessed the use of remote PR services during COVID-19 social distancing.

Methods: An online questionnaire survey to assess the use of remote PR during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent availability and delivery of remote PR in England was conducted. The characteristics of PR services in England that provided remote PR, and the barriers and facilitators of delivery of remote online PR by videoconferencing were assessed.

Results: Sixty-three services took part. Provision of remote PR rose from 17% to 95% for participating PR services during the pandemic. Remote PR was provided by telephone (65% of services), group videoconferencing (56%) and by individual patient videoconferencing (51%). Remote PR continued to be provided by 49 (76%) services following the relaxation of COVID-19-related restrictions on social contact. Barriers to the delivery of remote online PR using videoconferencing included patients' lack of internet access through inability to use smart phones or computers and perceived preference of patients for in-person provision. Perceived facilitators of remote online PR using videoconferencing were ease of staff delivery and the belief that it would be beneficial to patients.

Conclusion: Remote PR was widely used during the social distancing phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Service users' lack of access to the internet was an important barrier to videoconferencing, the form of remote online PR for which evidence of effectiveness is most compelling. The provision of digital equipment and internet training should be considered to enable more equitable access to remote online PR. Despite no guideline recommendations for its utility at present, remote pulmonary rehabilitation via telephone or online videoconferencing appears to be a safe and feasible alternative when in-person pulmonary rehabilitation is unavailable.

远程肺康复的交付:英国COVID-19服务评估
背景:最近有证据表明,符合国际标准的远程肺康复(PR)可能与传统的面对面公关一样有效。在与COVID-19相关的社交距离期间,英国暂停了面对面公关服务。我们评估了在COVID-19社交距离期间远程公关服务的使用情况。方法:采用在线问卷调查的方法,评估英国2019冠状病毒病疫情期间远程PR的使用情况以及随后远程PR的可得性和交付情况。评估了英国提供远程公关的公关服务的特点,以及通过视频会议提供远程在线公关的障碍和促进因素。结果:63家服务机构参与。在大流行期间,提供远程公关服务的比例从17%上升到95%。远程PR通过电话(65%的服务)、小组视频会议(56%)和个别患者视频会议(51%)提供。随着新冠肺炎相关社会接触限制的放松,49家(76%)服务公司继续提供远程公关服务。使用视频会议提供远程在线公关的障碍包括患者无法使用智能手机或电脑而缺乏互联网接入,以及患者认为更倾向于亲自提供服务。使用视频会议的远程在线公关的感知促进因素是工作人员交付的便利性和对患者有益的信念。结论:英国新冠肺炎疫情期间,远程PR在保持社交距离阶段得到广泛应用。服务用户无法访问互联网是视频会议的一个重要障碍,视频会议是远程在线公关的一种形式,其有效性的证据最令人信服。应考虑提供数字设备和互联网培训,以便更公平地获得远程在线PR。尽管目前尚无关于其用途的指南建议,但在无法进行面对面肺康复时,通过电话或在线视频会议进行远程肺康复似乎是一种安全可行的选择。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
372
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals
×
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