ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025
Delivery of Remote Pulmonary Rehabilitation: COVID-19 Service Evaluation in England.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global trends and research hotspots in pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a bibliometric analysis (2011-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.