Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34048354›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Telerehabilitation for Lung Transplant Candidates and Recipients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Program Evaluation.

Lisa Wickerson, Denise Helm, Chaya Gottesman, Dmitry Rozenberg, Lianne G Singer, Shaf Keshavjee, Aman Sidhu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Virtual Physical Prehabilitation in Lung Transplant Candidates: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisa WickersonToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6128-8966
Denise HelmToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8294-9794
Chaya GottesmanToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5480-3568
Dmitry RozenbergToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8786-9152
Lianne G SingerToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2693-8676
Shaf KeshavjeeToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4547-8094
Aman SidhuToronto Lung Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4817-1533
University Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift from center-based rehabilitation to telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease and lung transplantation due to infection control precautions. Clinical experience with this delivery model on a large scale has not been described.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to describe usage and satisfaction of providers and lung transplant (LTx) candidates and recipients and functional outcomes following the broad implementation of telerehabilitation with remote patient monitoring during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsThis study was a program evaluation of providers, LTx candidates, and early LTx recipients who used a web-based, remote monitoring app for at least four weeks between March 16 and September 1, 2020, to participate in telerehabilitation. Within-subjects analysis was performed for physical activity, Self-efficacy For Exercise (SEE) scale score, aerobic and resistance exercise volumes, 6-minute walk test results, and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) results.

resultsIn total, 78 LTx candidates and 33 recipients were included (57 [51%] males, mean age 58 [SD 12] years, 58 [52%] with interstitial lung disease, 34 [31%] with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). A total of 50 (64%) LTx candidates and 17 (51%) LTx recipients entered ≥10 prescribed exercise sessions into the app during the study time frame. In addition, 35/42 (83%) candidates agreed the app helped prepare them for surgery and 18/21 (85%) recipients found the app helpful in their self-recovery. The strongest barrier perceived by physiotherapists delivering the telerehabilitation was patient access to home exercise and monitoring equipment. Between the time of app registration and ≥4 weeks on the waiting list, 26 LTx candidates used a treadmill, with sessions increasing in mean duration (from 16 to 22 minutes, P=.002) but not speed (from 1.7 to 1.75 mph, P=.31). Quadriceps weight (pounds) for leg extension did not change (median 3.5, IQR 2.4-5 versus median 4.3, IQR 3-5; P=.08; n=37). On the Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity questionnaire (RAPA), 57% of LTx candidates scored as active, which improved to 87% (P=.02; n=23). There was a decrease in pretransplant 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) from 346 (SD 84) meters to 307 (SD 85) meters (P=.002; n=45) and no change in the SPPB result (12 [IQR 9.5-12] versus 12 [IQR 10-12]; P=.90; n=42). A total of 9 LTx recipients used a treadmill that increased in speed (from 1.9 to 2.7 mph; P=.003) between hospital discharge and three months posttransplant. Quadriceps weight increased (3 [IQR 0-3] pounds versus 5 [IQR 3.8-6.5] pounds; P<.001; n=15). At three months posttransplant, 76% of LTx recipients scored as active (n=17), with a high total SEE score of 74 (SD 11; n=12). In addition, three months posttransplant, 6MWD was 62% (SD 18%) predicted (n=8).

conclusionsWe were able to provide telerehabilitation despite challenges around exercise equipment. This early experience will inform the development of a robust and equitable telerehabilitation model beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Lung TransplantationTelerehabilitationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsProgram EvaluationQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2appCOVID-19lungoutcomerehabilitationsatisfactiontelemedicinetelerehabilitationtransplantusage

Identifiers

PMID34048354
PMCPMC8213059
OpenAlexW3164170867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.