Responses

Original research
Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Pulmonary tele-rehabilitation in the COVID-19 era.
    • Adam Lewis, Physiotherapy Lecturer Brunel University London
    • Other Contributors:
      • Elaine Bevan-Smith, Senior Lecturer in Advanced Clinical Practice
      • Adam Lound, Specialist Respiratory Physiotherapist
      • Joy Conway, Professor of Physiotherapy

    For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated improvements in physiological measures(1), patient-reported outcomes(2), and health economic indices(3). There is also a growing body of evidence around improvements in frailty(4) sedentary behaviour(5) and social-connectedness(6). The clinical need for alternative delivery modes of programmes, such as pulmonary tele-rehabilitation (PTR) has been clearly established in the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby conventional face-to-face programme provision seems an unlikely reality for the foreseeable future. The rapid remodelling of health services as a result of COVID-19 provides an exciting opportunity to reflect about the traditional aims, structure, outcomes and components of conventional PR programmes. Hansen et al(7) in a recent issue of Thorax provide an excellent, concise literature review, in combination with outcomes from their study, which suggest that PTR is certainly no worse than conventional PR for commonly reported patient outcomes and could indeed offer some benefits in terms of programme completion. However, there are limitations which we believe should be highlighted further.

    Hansen et al(7) recruited patients who fulfilled the ‘real world’ inclusion criteria for hospital-based PR. The authors suggest that this may explain why neither study group achieved minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in outcomes. However, patients with similar functiona...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.