Search

Pulmonary rehabilitation is a highly effective treatment for people with chronic lung disease but remains underused across the world. Recent years have seen the emergence of new program models that aim to improve access and uptake, including telerehabilitation and low-cost, home-based models. This workshop was convened to achieve consensus on the essential components of pulmonary rehabilitation and to identify requirements for successful implementation of emerging program models. A Delphi process involving experts from across the world identified 13 essential components of pulmonary rehabilitation that must be delivered in any program model, encompassing patient assessment, program content, method of delivery, and quality assurance, as well as 27 desirable components. Only those models of pulmonary rehabilitation that have been tested in clinical trials are currently considered as ready for implementation. The characteristics of patients most likely to succeed in each program model are not yet known, and research is needed in this area. Health professionals should use clinical judgment to determine those patients who are best served by a center-based, multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. A comprehensive patient assessment is critical for personalization of pulmonary rehabilitation and for effectively addressing individual patient goals. Robust quality-assurance processes are important to ensure that any pulmonary rehabilitation service delivers optimal outcomes for patients and health services. Workforce capacity-building and training should consider the skills necessary for emerging models, many of which are delivered remotely. The success of all pulmonary rehabilitation models will be judged on whether the essential components are delivered and on whether the expected patient outcomes, including improved exercise capacity, reduced dyspnea, enhanced health-related quality of life, and reduced hospital admissions, are achieved.

Objectives: To determine whether allied health interventions delivered using telehealth provide similar or better outcomes for patients compared with traditional face-to-face delivery modes. Study design: A rapid systematic review using the Cochrane methodology to extract eligible randomized trials. Eligible trials: Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared a comparable dose of face-to-face to telehealth interventions delivered by a neuropsychologist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, podiatrist, psychologist, and/or speech pathologist; reported patient-level outcomes; and included adult participants. Data sources: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases were first searched from inception for systematic reviews and eligible trials were extracted from these systematic reviews. These databases were then searched for randomized clinical trials published after the date of the most recent systematic review search in each discipline (2017). The reference lists of included trials were also hand-searched to identify potentially missed trials. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 1. Data Synthesis: Fifty-two trials (62 reports, n = 4470) met the inclusion criteria. Populations included adults with musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and/or pain. Synchronous and asynchronous telehealth approaches were used with varied modalities that included telephone, videoconferencing, apps, web portals, and remote monitoring, Overall, telehealth delivered similar improvements to face-to-face interventions for knee range, Health-Related Quality of Life, pain, language function, depression, anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This meta-analysis was limited for some outcomes and disciplines such as occupational therapy and speech pathology. Telehealth was safe and similar levels of satisfaction and adherence were found across modes of delivery and disciplines compared to face-to-face interventions. Conclusions: Many allied health interventions are equally as effective as face-to-face when delivered via telehealth. Incorporating telehealth into models of care may afford greater access to allied health professionals, however further comparative research is still required. In particular, significant gaps exist in our understanding of the efficacy of telehealth from podiatrists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, and neuropsychologists. Protocol Registration Number: PROSPERO (CRD42020203128). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if the intention to perform an exercise at speed leads to beneficial alterations in kinematic and kinetic components of the movement in people with post-stroke hemiplegia. Design: Comparative study. Setting: Subacute metropolitan rehabilitation hospital. Participants: Convenience sample of patients admitted as an inpatient or outpatient with a diagnosis of stroke with lower limb weakness, functional ambulation category score ≥3, and ability to walk ≥14metres. Methods: Participants performed a single leg squat exercise on their paretic and nonparetic legs on a leg sled under three conditions: 1) self-selected speed (SS), 2) fast speed (FS), 3) jump squat (JS). Measures of displacement, flight time, peak concentric velocity, and muscle excitation (via electromyography) were compared between legs and conditions. Results: Eleven participants (age: 56 ± 17 years; median time since stroke onset: 3.3 [IQR 3,41] months) were tested. All participants achieved a jump during the JS, as measured by displacement and flight time respectively, on both their paretic (0.25 ± 0.16 m and 0.42 ± 0.18 s) and nonparetic (0.49 ± 0.36 m and 0.73 ± 0.28 s) legs; however it was significantly lower on the non-paretic leg (p < 0.05). Peak concentric velocity increased concordantly with intended movement speed (JS-FS paretic: 0.96 m/s, non-paretic: 0.54 m/s; FS-SS paretic 0.69 m/s, nonparetic 0.38 m/s; JS-SS paretic 1.66 m/s, non-paretic 0.92 m/s). Similarly, muscle excitation increased significantly (p < 0.05) with faster speed for the paretic and nonparetic vastus lateralis. For gastrocnemius, the only significant difference was an increase during nonparetic JS vs. SS and FS. Conclusions: Speed affects the kinematic and kinetic components of the movement. Performing exercises ballistically may improve training outcomes for people post-stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]