Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane Review and meta-analysis

Susannah McLean, Ulugbek Nurmatov, Joseph LY Liu, Claudia Pagliari, Josip Car and Aziz Sheikh
British Journal of General Practice 2012; 62 (604): e739-e749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X658269
Susannah McLean
Roles: PhD student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ulugbek Nurmatov
Roles: research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph LY Liu
Roles: senior research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudia Pagliari
eHealth, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Roles: senior lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Josip Car
Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London
Roles: director of eHealth Unit
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aziz Sheikh
Roles: professor of primary care research and development
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common. Telehealthcare, involving personalised health care over a distance, is seen as having the potential to improve care for people with COPD.

Aim To systematically review the effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions in COPD to improve clinical and process outcomes.

Design and setting Cochrane Systematic Review of randomised controlled trials.

Methods The study involved searching the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, which is derived from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE®, embase™, and CINAHL®, as well as searching registers of ongoing and unpublished trials. Randomised controlled trials comparing a telehealthcare intervention with a control intervention in people with a clinical diagnosis of COPD were identified. The main outcomes of interest were quality of life and risk of emergency department visit, hospitalisation, and death. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias method. Meta-analysis was undertaken using fixed effect and/or random effects modelling.

Results Ten randomised controlled trials were included. Telehealthcare did not improve COPD quality of life: mean difference –6.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = –13.62 to 0.48). However, there was a significant reduction in the odds ratios (ORs) of emergency department attendance (OR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.66) and hospitalisation (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.65). There was a non-significant change in the OR of death (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.75).

Conclusion In COPD, telehealthcare interventions can significantly reduce the risk of emergency department attendance and hospitalisation, but has little effect on the risk of death.

  • COPD
  • meta-analysis
  • primary care respiratory
  • systematic review
  • telehealth

INTRODUCTION

At present, there are only a limited number of effective pharmacological interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).1,2 It is against this background that interest in telehealthcare models of care, which involve care for patients from a distance, have captured policy interest. It has been suggested that telehealthcare will help manage the burden of COPD by making health care more efficient,3 often by incorporating a degree of service redesign.4

Telehealthcare is attracting a considerable amount of investment globally; therefore, it is important and timely to scrutinise the evidence for telehealthcare in COPD and to look to resolve uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of such interventions.5,6 The objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for people with COPD in improving quality of life and reducing emergency department visits, hospitalisations, and mortality. This report is a synopsis of the recently published Cochrane Review.7

METHOD

Participants

Researchers were interested in studies involving participants with clinician-diagnosed COPD. Studies could be based in primary care, secondary care, or intermediate care settings. No exclusions were made on the basis of participants’ sex, ethnicity, or language spoken.

Interventions

Miller’s conceptualisation of telehealthcare was adapted to define it as ‘the provision of personalised health care from a distance’.8 This definition encapsulates the following key considerations:

  • Information is obtained from individual patients; for example, in the form of a symptom score, oxygen saturation level, pulse rate.

  • These data are transmitted over a distance by information and communication technology.

  • A healthcare professional then exercises their clinical skills and judgement in interpreting this information and actively provides the patient with personalised feedback.

Self-care technologies, self-education, and websites without professional feedback were excluded. This study aimed to concentrate on interventions with an emphasis on ‘personalised’ or ‘tailored’ health care. This required a focus on patient–professional interactions enabled by distance communications technologies. Telehealthcare includes active professional feedback to patients, and excludes passive, automated feedback.9

Telehealthcare encompasses both synchronous (for example, telephone, mobile phone) and asynchronous communication modalities (for example, e-mail and text message). The synchronous approaches allow real-time communication between patient and professional, whereas asynchronous approaches enable patient data to be stored in packages and forwarded at specified intervals (for example, once a week) for review by the healthcare professional.

How this fits in

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is increasingly common and now poses a substantial health problem in many parts of the world. Governments and industry are optimistic that telehealthcare will help manage the care burden of these people. This study found consistent evidence that telehealthcare helps people with COPD stay out of emergency departments and hospitals. Telehealthcare did not appear to affect the death rate or patients’ quality of life.

Comparisons

Control groups varied across the different studies in terms of the frequency and intensity of clinical contact provided. Most often, control groups featured ‘usual care’ although in some instances this included regular face-to-face home visits.

Design

Researchers stipulated that eligible study designs must randomise individuals/groups to the telehealthcare intervention of interest or control.

Outcomes

Data were gathered on a variety of process and clinical outcomes. Primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life scores, the number of patients with one or more emergency department visits over 12 months, the number of patients with one or more hospitalisations over 12 months and numbers of deaths. Other outcomes of interest were patient satisfaction, costs, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1).

Protocol

Researchers specified the search strategy, study quality assessment methods, and approaches to synthesising data in a protocol, which was published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.10

Searching for studies

The study involved searching the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE®, embase™, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®), and other electronic sources. Manual searches of respiratory journals and meetings’ abstracts also contribute to the register. All records in the register that had been coded as ‘chronic obstructive pulmonary disease’ were searched using the telehealthcare terms specified in the search strategy, published by Cochrane.7

Researchers contacted the authors of the identified articles and asked them to identify other published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. Authors searched the UK’s National Research Register(http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/NRRArchive.aspx). References of the included trials were searched to find further randomised controlled trials; as well as additional registers of ongoing and unpublished trials: ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (www.anzctr.org.au).

Selection of studies

Using an agreed definition of telehealthcare, two authors screened the titles and abstracts to obtain a list of potentially eligible studies. Researchers obtained full-text copies of these studies and reached agreement through discussion regarding the final list of studies for inclusion. If agreement could not be reached, a third reviewer arbitrated.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from the included studies and then independently verified by a second reviewer: country and setting; study design; the number of participants; a description of the telehealthcare intervention; a description of the control group; outcomes assessed and outcome data; proportion of patients with follow-up data; any harms or adverse effects.

Assessment of risk of bias

The study used the approach from The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, section 611 to assess the risk of bias in each trial using the following criteria:

  • Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? For example, by computer randomisation.

  • Was allocation adequately concealed? For example, by sealed envelopes.

  • Were the patients and researchers blinded to the allocated interventions?

  • Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? For example, were all patient withdrawals accounted for?

  • Were study reports free of any suggestion of selective reporting?

  • Was the study apparently free of other problems that might cause bias?

Analysis and data synthesis

Summary statistics for primary outcomes were calculated where there were sufficient data to pool outcomes. Mean difference for available quality of life scores were calculated, as well as odds ratios (ORs) for other variables using fixed effect meta-analysis in the absence of significant heterogeneity (I2<40%) and random effects meta-analysis where significant heterogeneity was present. Pooled data were presented graphically as Forest plots. The information that could not be pooled in meta-analysis was narratively summarised.

RESULTS

Searches revealed 220 potentially relevant studies. Following review of titles and abstracts, full text of 48 reports were obtained for appraisal of relevance and quality. Finally, 10 trials were selected,12–21 published in 12 reports12–23 (Figure 1) studying a total of 1004 patients.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram showing selection of studies.

Description of studies

A summary of the key characteristics of all 10 trials is given in Table 1.12–21 Some of the studies14,16,17,20 relied on videoconferencing or telephone communication to set up ‘virtual consultations’, sometimes in addition to face-to-face consultations. Key outcomes of emergency department visits and hospitalisations were studied across most studies, but only those four studies which investigated a period of 12 months contributed to meta-analysis.12–14,19

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Description of characteristics of included studies

Risk of bias

A summary of the risk of bias in the included studies can be found in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Cochrane risk of bias rating

Effectiveness of telehealthcare

Results regarding the effectiveness of the interventions on outcomes from all studies are summarised in Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Results from the 10 included trials

Impact on quality of life

Two studies12,13 reported health-related quality of life using the validated St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Negative change on this questionnaire’s scale indicates improvement; the minimal clinically significant difference in health status is a change of four points.24 Meta-analysis (Figure 2) of these studies revealed a potentially important clinical improvement of –6.57 (95% CI = –13.62 to 0.48), but this pooled estimate was imprecise: the wide 95% CI indicated there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate clear benefit. A third study18 used the validated Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Given concerns about the appropriateness of pooling these data with those derived from the SGRQ, it was decided not to include these data in the meta-analysis.25 After 6 months of this study18 the difference across the control and intervention group in CRQ scores was not significant.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Mean difference between groups at end of 12 months according to St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD-related quality of life. Random effects analysis.

Emergency department visits

Three studies12,14,19 reported data on emergency department visits over 12 months. Intervention group patients were significantly less likely to attend the emergency department than patients in the control group: OR 0.27 (95% CI = 0.11 to 0.66; Figure 3).

Figure 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3

Numbers of patients with one or more visits each to the emergency dept over 12 month period of study. Random effects analysis. M-H = Mantel Haenszel odds ratio.

Hospitalisation

Four studies12–14,19 reported on hospitalisations. The number of patients with one or more hospital admissions during the 12-month period of follow-up in these trials was significantly lower in the intervention group: OR 0.46 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.65; Figure 4).

Figure 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4

Number of patients with one or more hospitalisations over 12 months. Fixed effects analysis. M-H = Mantel Haenszel odds ratio.

Another study21 reported that there was insufficient evidence of a difference between telehealthcare follow-up and the control group in hospitalisation rates at 3 months (P = 0.182). In addition, one study16 examined the outcome measure of ‘discharge to a higher level of care’ (hospital or nursing home), and found that telehealthcare intervention patients were less likely to be discharged to a higher level of care than usual care patients OR 0.29 (95% CI = 0.08 to 1.05), but this result was again imprecisely estimated.

Death

In terms of deaths, the Vitacca et al study19 included data from patients who did not have COPD; however, when stratified for diagnosis, mortality rate did not differ between the two arms of the study. The best estimate comes from a pooled fixed effect meta-analysis which was undertaken with data from three studies12–14 to give OR 1.05 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.75), an imprecise estimate close to no effect (Figure 5). The only other study16 which included deaths reported no statistically significant difference in mortality between the groups; however, raw data were not available for this study and so these were not included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 5
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5

Deaths over 12 months in the control group and telehealthcare group of the studies. Fixed effects analysis. M-H = Mantel Haenszel odds ratio.

Other outcomes

Exacerbations

Only the Bourbeau et al12 study recorded the total number of exacerbations of COPD. Over the 12 months of follow-up, there were 362 exacerbations in the control group (n = 95) and 299 exacerbations in the intervention group (n = 95). The between group difference was significant, favouring intervention: relative risk 0.83 (95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92).

Secondary outcomes

Patient satisfaction data showed that patients were largely satisfied with telehealthcare as long as they could have a face-to-face consultation on request. FEV1 was recorded in two studies and did not show a significantly different increase from start of trial to trial end across the two arms of the trials.

Discussion

Summary

There was consistent evidence that the numbers of visits to the emergency department and also the number of hospitalisations were significantly reduced with telehealthcare over 12 months. In terms of quality of life, the evidence was inconclusive as the confidence intervals were wide.12–14,18 There was evidence of almost no effect on the OR of mortality.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this review is its broad search strategy designed with the Cochrane Airways Group to identify 10 completed and seven ongoing relevant trials. The definition of telehealthcare used was conceptual and consistently applied: all included studies thus featured an interaction with a healthcare professional providing personalised feedback over a distance.

It can be challenging to decide whether or not to synthesise data quantitatively and, on balance, researchers thought it appropriate because the intervention approach that was being investigated; that is, facilitating personalised care from a distance was conceptually coherent thus making comparisons logical and consistent. An alternative approach would be to organise a series of reviews focusing on distinct technologies, but this was not the aim of the current study as, given that technologies are rapidly evolving and continually emerging, this would necessitate undertaking many separate reviews. Another potential limitation includes the possibility that the study did not uncover all relevant research.

Comparisons with literature

It is relevant to consider the meta-analysis in the Polisena et al26 review, where there is a transposition of the deaths in the Bourbeau et al12 study between the intervention and control groups which has a major impact on the mortality meta-analysis. Researchers of the current study have informed the authors of this. In addition, Polisena et al26 did not limit inclusion criteria to only randomised controlled trials and so there is a risk of bias from less methodologically rigorous studies.

A recent review by Bolton et al9 concentrated on telemonitoring in COPD and included interventions without the same degree of healthcare professional interaction that formed part of the inclusion criteria in the current study. They included both randomised and non-randomised studies which introduces a high risk of bias. They found only two randomised controlled trials, one of which was included in this study19 and the other trialled a self-management intervention27 which was excluded.

Implications for research and practice

Telehealthcare research for COPD needs to involve large scale trials with rigorous cost-effectiveness assessments built in. In this context, the full report of the results of the Whole System Demonstrator Project is eagerly awaited.28 Telehealthcare aims to keep those with COPD out of emergency departments and hospital. However, such a change may result in unintended consequences. For example, reducing the intensity of the care of such patients may be expected to impact unfavourably on the death rate. However, almost no evidence of this was found in the current meta-analysis (n = 503).

More qualitative research is also needed to help understand why particular interventions are (or are not) successful. Telecommunications technology should only be one element of the delivery of a substantially enhanced package of integrated chronic illness care.4 Successful interventions involve the provision of tailored and timely information to the individual. Personalised feedback from a healthcare professional is important. The telehealthcare models adopted in these studies often involved a mix of face-to-face and ‘virtual’ consultations with a specialist nurse or physiotherapist who had additional training in the management of COPD and who used a variety of techniques including early intervention, breathing exercises, and other elements of pulmonary rehabilitation to maintain patients’ health.

There has been much recent optimism regarding the potential for telehealthcare to reduce the cost of health care in patients with COPD. Although largely consistent, the studies in the review are small, with follow-up to only 12 months. Nonetheless, these data do indicate that telehealthcare-based models of COPD care can significantly reduce emergency department attendance and hospitalisation. The best evidence for telehealthcare involves redesigning the care pathway into a personalised interaction across a distance to deliver feedback from a healthcare professional in response to specific patient data. These benefits are still to be demonstrated when telehealthcare is implemented routinely on a larger scale.

Notes

Funding

Susannah McLean was supported by a National Health Service Education for Scotland Clinical Academic Fellowship in General Practice. Other support came from the NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme (NHS CFHEP 001) and the Edinburgh Medical Research Council Trials Methodology Hub (G0800803). The funding agencies had no role in designing or conducting this study, the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Susannah McLean has received an honorarium from Cumbria Trust for speaking and from the BMJ for writing about telehealthcare. Joseph LY Liu has worked on a Medicaid funded project on telehealthcare. All other authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received February 3, 2012.
  • Revision received March 8, 2012.
  • Accepted May 1, 2012.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2012

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Qaseem A,
    2. Snow V,
    3. Shekelle P,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 147(9):633–638.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. National Clinical Guideline Centre
    (2010) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults in primary and secondary care (NICE, London).
  3. ↵
    1. Darzi A
    (2008) High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report (Department of Health, London) http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_085825 (accessed 24 Sep 2012).
  4. ↵
    1. McLean S,
    2. Sheikh A
    (2009) Does telehealthcare offer a patient-centred way forward for the community-based management of long-term respiratory disease? Prim Care Respir J 18(3):125–126.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Whitten PS,
    2. Mair FS,
    3. Haycox A,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 324(7351):1434–1437.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. McKinstry B,
    2. Pinnock H,
    3. Sheikh A
    (2009) Telemedicine for management of patients with COPD? Lancet 374(9691):672–673.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. McLean S,
    2. Nurmatov U,
    3. Liu JLY,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (7), CD007718.
  8. ↵
    1. Miller EA
    (2007) Solving the disjuncture between research and practice, telehealth trends in the 21st Century. Health Policy 82(2):133–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bolton CE,
    2. Waters CS,
    3. Peirce S,
    4. Elwyn G
    (2011) Insufficient evidence of benefit: a systematic review of home telemonitoring for COPD. J Eval Clin Pract 17(6):1216–1222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. McLean S,
    2. Nurmatov U,
    3. Liu JL,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (7), CD007718.
  11. ↵
    1. Higgins J,
    2. Green S
    (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford) Version 5.1.0 edn.
  12. ↵
    1. Bourbeau J,
    2. Julien M,
    3. Maltais F,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease-specific self-management intervention. Arch Intern Med 163(5):585–591.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Casas A,
    2. Troosters T,
    3. Garcia-Aymerich J,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Integrated care prevents hospitalisations for exacerbations in COPD patients. Eur Respir J 28(1):123–130.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. de Toledo P,
    2. Jimenez S,
    3. Pozo F,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Telemedicine experience for chronic care in COPD. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 10(3):567–573.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chandler MH,
    2. Clifton GD,
    3. Louis BA,
    4. et al.
    (1990) Home monitoring of theophylline levels: a novel therapeutic approach. Pharmacotherapy 10(4):294–300.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Finkelstein SM,
    2. Speedie SM,
    3. Potthoff S
    (2006) Home telehealth improves clinical outcomes at lower cost for home healthcare. Telemed J E Health 12(2):128–136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Johnston B,
    2. Wheeler L,
    3. Deuser J,
    4. Sousa KH
    (2000) Outcomes of the Kaiser Permanente Tele-Home Health Research Project. Arch Fam Med 9(1):40–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Nguyen HQ,
    2. Donesky-Cuenco D,
    3. Wolpin S,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based versus face-to-face dyspnea self-management program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot study. J Med Internet Res 10(2):e9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Vitacca M,
    2. Bianchi L,
    3. Guerra A,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Tele-assistance in chronic respiratory failure patients: a randomised clinical trial. Eur Respir J 33(2):411–418.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Whitten P,
    2. Mickus M
    (2007) Home telecare for COPD/CHF patients: outcomes and perceptions. J Telemed Telecare 13(2):69–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Wong KW,
    2. Wong FKY,
    3. Chan MF
    (2005) Effects of nurse-initiated telephone follow-up on self-efficacy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Adv Nurs 49(2):210–222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Garcia-Aymerich J,
    2. Hernandez C,
    3. Alonso A,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Effects of an integrated care intervention on risk factors of COPD readmission. Respir Med 101(7):1462–1469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Finkelstein SM,
    2. Speedie SM,
    3. Demiris G,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Telehomecare: quality, perception, satisfaction. Telemed J E Health 10(2):122–128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Hajiro T,
    2. Nishimura K
    (2002) Minimal clinically significant difference in health status: the thorny path of health status measures? Eur Respir J 19(3):390–391.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Puhan MA,
    2. Soesilo I,
    3. Guyatt GH,
    4. Schunemann HJ
    (2006) Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified? Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Polisena J,
    2. Tran K,
    3. Cimon K,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Home telehealth for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 16(3):120–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Koff PB,
    2. Jones RH,
    3. Cashman JM,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Proactive integrated care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J 33(5):1031–1038.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2008) Whole system demonstrator project (DoH, London).
    1. Bourbeau J,
    2. Bartlett S
    (2008) Patient adherence in COPD. Thorax 63(9):831–838.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 62 (604)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 62, Issue 604
November 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane Review and meta-analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane Review and meta-analysis
Susannah McLean, Ulugbek Nurmatov, Joseph LY Liu, Claudia Pagliari, Josip Car, Aziz Sheikh
British Journal of General Practice 2012; 62 (604): e739-e749. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp12X658269

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane Review and meta-analysis
Susannah McLean, Ulugbek Nurmatov, Joseph LY Liu, Claudia Pagliari, Josip Car, Aziz Sheikh
British Journal of General Practice 2012; 62 (604): e739-e749. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp12X658269
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • COPD
  • meta-analysis
  • primary care respiratory
  • systematic review
  • telehealth

More in this TOC Section

  • Young people who have fallen through the mental health transition gap: a qualitative study on primary care support
  • Accuracy of the NICE traffic light system in children presenting to general practice: a retrospective cohort study
  • Characterisation of type 2 diabetes subgroups and their association with ethnicity and clinical outcomes: a UK real-world data study using the East London Database
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242