ReviewThe Pan African medical journal2022
Pulmonary rehabilitation in Africa: where are we? a multimethod study.
Review in The Pan African medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agency as a catalyst in pulmonary rehabilitation implementation: Physiotherapists' perspectives.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- Pulmonary rehabilitation across Africa: A continental evaluation of healthcare providers' awareness, availability and utilisation, and barriers to access.African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an integral part of the management of patients with chronic respiratory diseases. However, there is limited information available on the effectiveness and practice of PR in Africa. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence, structure, and organization of PR in Africa, as well as its substance and claimed efficacy. We conducted a multimethod study involving systematic review of PR studies (obtained from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases) and a web-based survey of African healthcare professionals engaged in PR (using a standardized questionnaire). The review included papers on at least one component of PR in Africa and excluded those on PR from other continents or assessing pulmonary disorders in general without PR, cardio-rehabilitation, or physiotherapy practice in general in Africa. The Cochrane risk of bias and the Newcastle Ottawa scale instruments were used to assess the quality of included studies. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture. Of the 14 studies included for qualitative synthesis, seven were randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of PR treatments with a total number of 333 participants. Of the 39 surveys mailed to health professionals working in Africa, only 14 (35.8%) were returned. We found aerobic exercise and breathing exercises were the most used technique and that quality of life, exercise capacity, and lung function improved significantly after PR treatments. There were differences in the duration, frequency, and length of the programs across the continent. Half of the respondents indicated that their institutions had one or more PR programs for inpatient, outpatient, maintenance, and/or home-based programs. Additionally, aerobic activities, upper and lower extremity strength training were the most frequently used exercise modalities in PR programs, followed by breathing exercises. Pulmonary rehabilitation is understudied in Africa, but it has been linked to improved lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. There is a need to invest in techniques tailored to the continent to enhance the implementation of pulmonary rehabilitation in Africa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.