INTRODUCTION: Limited access to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has contributed to the rise of telerehabilitation (TPR) for COPD patients. Positive comparable effects are observed in exercise tolerance, quality of life (QoL), and dyspnoea with TPR. However, patient adherence to TPR is an outcome that has not been sufficiently analysed. OBJECTIVE: To analyse adherence, satisfaction, and quality-of-life improvements in COPD patients following the TPR program to determine whether telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional therapy or usual care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using four electronic databases, retrieving 392 articles. Two independent researchers selected and evaluated these articles based on predefined eligibility criteria. A third researcher was consulted in the event of disagreements. RESULTS: Primary outcomes: Adherence to PR and/or usual care showed a minimum reported value of 62% and a maximum reported value of 91%, while TPR adherence had the lowest reported value of 21% and the highest reported value of 93.5%. Five articles compared TPR to PR and/or usual care, showing that TPR adherence is higher or similar to other interventions, whereas only one article found lower TPR adherence compared to PR. Secondary outcomes: A higher number of dropouts were reported for PR and usual care compared to TPR. Three publications analysed satisfaction and demonstrated that patients are satisfied across groups. Tertiary outcomes: Comparable improvements in QoL were found for TPR and PR, both being superior to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals heterogeneity in classifying adherence for pulmonary rehabilitation and telerehabilitation. Adherence classification may be standardised in future studies for consistent analysis.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• PubMed Central
• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher