Factors which facilitate or impede patient engagement with pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation: a rapid evaluation mapping review.

L. Blank, A. Cantrell, K. Sworn, A. Booth
{"title":"Factors which facilitate or impede patient engagement with pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation: a rapid evaluation mapping review.","authors":"L. Blank, A. Cantrell, K. Sworn, A. Booth","doi":"10.3310/hsdr-tr-135449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nThere is a considerable body of systematic review evidence considering the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes on clinical outcomes. However, much less is known about effectively engaging and sustaining patients in rehabilitation. There is a need to understand the full range of potential intervention strategies.\n\n\nMethods\nWe conducted a mapping review of UK review-level evidence published 2017-21. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) and conducted a narrative synthesis. Included reviews reported factors affecting commencement, continuation or completion of cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation, or an intervention to facilitate these factors. Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers.\n\n\nResults\nIn total, we identified 20 review papers that met our inclusion criteria. There was a bias towards reviews considering cardiac rehabilitation, with these numbering 16. An additional 11 unpublished interventions were also identified through internet searching of key websites. The reviews included 60 identifiable UK primary studies that considered factors which affected attendance at rehabilitation; 42 considered cardiac rehabilitation and 18 considering pulmonary rehabilitation. They reported on factors from the patients' point of view, as well as the views of professionals involved in referral or treatment. It was more common for factors to be reported as impeding attendance at rehabilitation rather than facilitating it. We grouped the factors into patient perspective (support, culture, demographics, practical, health, emotions, knowledge/beliefs and service factors) and professional perspective (knowledge: staff and patient, staffing, adequacy of service provision and referral from other services, including support and wait times). We found considerably fewer reviews (n = 3) looking at interventions to facilitate participation in rehabilitation. Although most of the factors affecting participation were reported from a patient perspective, most of the identified interventions were implemented to address barriers to access in terms of the provider perspective. The majority of access challenges identified by patients would not therefore be addressed by the identified interventions. The more recent unevaluated interventions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic may have the potential to act on some of the patient barriers in access to services, including travel and inconvenient timing of services.\n\n\nConclusions\nThe factors affecting commencement, continuation or completion of cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation consist of a web of complex and interlinked factors taking into consideration the perspectives of the patients and the service providers. The small number of published interventions we identified that aim to improve access are unlikely to address the majority of these factors, especially those identified by patients as limiting their access. Better understanding of these factors will allow future interventions to be more evidence based with clear objectives as to how to address the known barriers to improve access.\n\n\nLimitations\nTime limitations constrained the consideration of study quality and precluded the inclusion of additional searching methods such as citation searching and contacting key authors. This may have implications for the completeness of the evidence base identified.\n\n\nFuture work\nHigh-quality effectiveness studies of promising interventions to improve attendance at rehabilitation, both overall and for key patient groups, should be the focus moving forward.\n\n\nFunding\nThis report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HSDR programme or the Department of Health.\n\n\nStudy registration\nThe study protocol is registered with PROSPERO [CRD42022309214].","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"11 4 1","pages":"1-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr-tr-135449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background There is a considerable body of systematic review evidence considering the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes on clinical outcomes. However, much less is known about effectively engaging and sustaining patients in rehabilitation. There is a need to understand the full range of potential intervention strategies. Methods We conducted a mapping review of UK review-level evidence published 2017-21. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) and conducted a narrative synthesis. Included reviews reported factors affecting commencement, continuation or completion of cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation, or an intervention to facilitate these factors. Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers. Results In total, we identified 20 review papers that met our inclusion criteria. There was a bias towards reviews considering cardiac rehabilitation, with these numbering 16. An additional 11 unpublished interventions were also identified through internet searching of key websites. The reviews included 60 identifiable UK primary studies that considered factors which affected attendance at rehabilitation; 42 considered cardiac rehabilitation and 18 considering pulmonary rehabilitation. They reported on factors from the patients' point of view, as well as the views of professionals involved in referral or treatment. It was more common for factors to be reported as impeding attendance at rehabilitation rather than facilitating it. We grouped the factors into patient perspective (support, culture, demographics, practical, health, emotions, knowledge/beliefs and service factors) and professional perspective (knowledge: staff and patient, staffing, adequacy of service provision and referral from other services, including support and wait times). We found considerably fewer reviews (n = 3) looking at interventions to facilitate participation in rehabilitation. Although most of the factors affecting participation were reported from a patient perspective, most of the identified interventions were implemented to address barriers to access in terms of the provider perspective. The majority of access challenges identified by patients would not therefore be addressed by the identified interventions. The more recent unevaluated interventions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic may have the potential to act on some of the patient barriers in access to services, including travel and inconvenient timing of services. Conclusions The factors affecting commencement, continuation or completion of cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation consist of a web of complex and interlinked factors taking into consideration the perspectives of the patients and the service providers. The small number of published interventions we identified that aim to improve access are unlikely to address the majority of these factors, especially those identified by patients as limiting their access. Better understanding of these factors will allow future interventions to be more evidence based with clear objectives as to how to address the known barriers to improve access. Limitations Time limitations constrained the consideration of study quality and precluded the inclusion of additional searching methods such as citation searching and contacting key authors. This may have implications for the completeness of the evidence base identified. Future work High-quality effectiveness studies of promising interventions to improve attendance at rehabilitation, both overall and for key patient groups, should be the focus moving forward. Funding This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HSDR programme or the Department of Health. Study registration The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO [CRD42022309214].
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
促进或阻碍患者参与肺部和心脏康复的因素:快速评估映射综述。
背景考虑到康复计划对临床结果的有效性,有相当多的系统审查证据。然而,关于有效地让患者参与和维持康复,人们知之甚少。有必要了解各种潜在的干预策略。方法我们对2017-21年发表的英国审查级别的证据进行了映射审查。我们搜索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和护理与联合健康累积指数(CINAHL),并进行了叙述性综合。纳入的综述报告了影响心脏或肺部康复开始、持续或完成的因素,或促进这些因素的干预措施。研究选择由两名评审员独立进行。结果我们总共确定了20篇符合纳入标准的综述论文。对考虑心脏康复的审查存在偏见,共有16项。通过对主要网站的互联网搜索,还确定了另外11项未发表的干预措施。审查包括60项可识别的英国初级研究,这些研究考虑了影响康复出勤率的因素;42人考虑心脏康复,18人考虑肺部康复。他们报告了患者角度的因素,以及参与转诊或治疗的专业人员的观点。据报告,阻碍康复而非促进康复的因素更为常见。我们将这些因素分为患者视角(支持、文化、人口统计、实践、健康、情绪、知识/信念和服务因素)和专业视角(知识:工作人员和患者、人员配备、服务提供的充分性和其他服务的转诊,包括支持和等待时间)。我们发现,对促进参与康复的干预措施的审查(n=3)要少得多。尽管大多数影响参与的因素都是从患者的角度报告的,但大多数已确定的干预措施都是从提供者的角度解决获取障碍的。因此,确定的干预措施不会解决患者确定的大多数获取挑战。新冠肺炎大流行期间实施的最近未经评估的干预措施可能有可能解决患者获得服务的一些障碍,包括旅行和不方便的服务时间。结论考虑到患者和服务提供者的观点,影响心肺康复开始、继续或完成的因素由一系列复杂而相互关联的因素组成。我们确定的少数旨在改善获取途径的已发表干预措施不太可能解决大多数这些因素,尤其是那些被患者确定为限制其获取途径的因素。更好地了解这些因素将使未来的干预措施更加基于证据,并明确如何解决已知的障碍,以改善获取途径。限制时间限制限制了对研究质量的考虑,并排除了其他搜索方法,如引文搜索和联系关键作者。这可能会对所确定的证据基础的完整性产生影响。未来的工作对有希望的干预措施进行高质量有效性研究,以提高整体和关键患者群体的康复率,应该是未来的重点。本报告介绍了由美国国立卫生研究院(NIHR)资助的独立研究。作者在本出版物中表达的观点和意见是作者的观点和观点,不一定反映NHS、NIHR、NETSCC、HSDR计划或卫生部的观点和看法。研究注册研究方案在PROSPERO注册[CDR42022309214]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1