Factors that influence the provision of home-based rehabilitation services for people needing rehabilitation: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: To increase people's access to rehabilitation services, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to explore how the delivery of these services can be adapted. This includes the use of home-based rehabilitation and telerehabilitation. Home-based rehabilitation services may become frequently used options in the recovery process of patients, not only as a solution to accessibility barriers, but as a complement to the usual in-person inpatient rehabilitation provision. Telerehabilitation is also becoming more viable as the usability and availability of communication technologies improve. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that influence the organisation and delivery of in-person home-based rehabilitation and home-based telerehabilitation for people needing rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, Global Health, the VHL Regional Portal, Epistemonikos, Health Systems Evidence, and EBM Reviews as well as preprints, regional repositories, and rehabilitation organisations websites for eligible studies, from database inception to search date in June 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; and that explored patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and other stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and behaviours about the provision of in-person home-based rehabilitation and home-based telerehabilitation services responding to patients' needs in different phases of their health conditions.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a purposive sampling approach and applied maximum variation sampling in a four-step sampling frame. We conducted a framework thematic analysis using the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) framework as our starting point. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 223 studies in the review and sampled 53 of these for our analysis. Forty-five studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in low-and middle-income countries. Twenty studies addressed in-person home-based rehabilitation, 28 studies addressed home-based telerehabilitation services, and five studies addressed both modes of delivery. The studies mainly explored the perspectives of healthcare providers, patients with a range of different health conditions, and their informal caregivers and family members.  Based on our GRADE-CERQual assessments, we had high confidence in eight of the findings, and moderate confidence in five, indicating that it is highly likely or likely respectively that these findings are a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. There were two findings with low confidence. High and moderate confidence findings Home-based rehabilitation services delivered in-person or through telerehabilitation  Patients experience home-based services as convenient and less disruptive of their everyday activities. Patients and providers also suggest that these services can encourage patients' self-management and can make them feel empowered about the rehabilitation process. But patients, family members, and providers describe privacy and confidentiality issues when services are provided at home. These include the increased privacy of being able to exercise at home but also the loss of privacy when one's home life is visible to others.  Patients and providers also describe other factors that can affect the success of home-based rehabilitation services. These include support from providers and family members, good communication with providers, the requirements made of patients and their surroundings, and the transition from hospital to home-based services. Telerehabilitation specifically Patients, family members and providers see telerehabilitation as an opportunity to make services more available. But providers point to practical problems when assessing whether patients are performing their exercises correctly. Providers and patients also describe interruptions from family members.  In addition, providers complain of a lack of equipment, infrastructure and maintenance and patients refer to usability issues and frustration with digital technology. Providers have different opinions about whether telerehabilitation is cost-efficient for them. But many patients see telerehabilitation as affordable and cost-saving if the equipment and infrastructure have been provided. Patients and providers suggest that telerehabilitation can change the nature of their relationship. For instance, some patients describe how telerehabilitation leads to easier and more relaxed communication. Other patients describe feeling abandoned when receiving telerehabilitation services.  Patients, family members and providers call for easy-to-use technologies and more training and support. They also suggest that at least some in-person sessions with the provider are necessary. They feel that telerehabilitation services alone can make it difficult to make meaningful connections. They also explain that some services need the provider's hands. Providers highlight the importance of personalising the services to each person's needs and circumstances. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis identified several factors that can influence the successful implementation of in-person home-based rehabilitation and telerehabilitation services. These included factors that facilitate implementation, but also factors that can challenge this process. Healthcare providers, program planners and policymakers might benefit from considering these factors when designing and implementing programmes.

Countries Response for People With Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background and Objectives: During the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, isolation and prevention measures to reduce COVID-19 contagions are essential for the care of all people; these measures should comply with the principles of inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities (PWD), with all kinds of deficiencies and levels of dependency. Thereby, the aim of this article is to present the measures adopted for PWD or people with rehabilitation needs, for containment, mitigation, or suppression of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in different countries of all continents and of all income levels. Methods: A narrative approach was used in this article. First, a broad search was carried out in the 193 member states of the UN, and then 98 countries that issued any document, report, or information related to disability and COVID-19 were selected. Finally, 32 countries were included in this article because they presented official information. We considered official sources, the information available in the government, or on the health ministry page of the country. In this way, the countries that presented information which did not correspond to an official source were excluded. The search was conducted in August 2020 and updated in March 2021. Results: First, the non-pharmacological general interventions for PWD included informative measures and general recommendations during the stay at home, isolation, and biosecurity measures, contagion prevention, detection of positive cases, mobilization measures, and measures implemented in institutions or residences of PWD. Second, we identified the economic and social benefits provided to PWD during the pandemic. Finally, we identified the measures taken by countries according to the type of impairment (visual, hearing, physical, mental, and cardiopulmonary impairment) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 50% of countries from the five world regions created and implemented specific measures for PWD to containment, mitigation, or suppression of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is very little specific information available about the measures to continue with the care of people with rehabilitation needs and the long-term follow-up of PWD, and for the prevention and response to violence, especially for women with disabilities.

Adaptations for rehabilitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic proposed by scientific organizations and rehabilitation professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To describe adaptations in the provision of rehabilitation services proposed by scientific and professional rehabilitation organizations to avoid interruptions to patients rehabilitation process and delays in starting rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A narrative review approach was used to identify the recommendations of scientific and professional organizations in the area of rehabilitation. A systematic search was performed in the main data-bases in 78 international and regional web portals of rehabilitation organizations. A total of 21 publications from these organizations were identified and selected. RESULTS: The results are presented in 4 categories: adequacy of inpatient services, including acute care services and intensive care unit for patients with and without COVID-19; adequacy of outpatient services, including home-based rehabilitation and tele-rehabilitation; recommendations to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and regulatory standards and positions during the COVID-19 pandemic expressed by organizations for protecting the rights of health workers and patients. CONCLUSION: Health systems around the world are rapidly learning from actions aimed at the reorganization of rehabilitation services for patients who are in the process of recovery from acute or chronic conditions, and the rapid response to the rehabilitation of survivors of COVID-19, as well as from efforts in the prevention of contagion of those providing the services.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection

Background: The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19. Aim: To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems. Methods: We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria. Result: Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives. Resumen Antecedentes: Se requiere la mejor evidencia científica para diseñar intervenciones no farmacológicas efectivas para ayudar a los formuladores de políticas a contener COVID-19. Objetivo: Describir qué intervenciones no farmacológicas utilizaron diferentes países y cuándo las implementaron. También explora cómo las intervenciones no farmacológicas afectan el número de casos, la mortalidad y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud. Métodos: Consultamos ocho páginas web de organizaciones transnacionales, 17 de medios internacionales, 99 de instituciones gubernamentales en los 19 países incluidos, y además, incluimos nueve estudios (de 34 identificados) que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. Resultados: Algunos países implementaron restricciones de viaje, aislamiento de casos identificados y personas de alto riesgo. Otros combinaron varias medidas más drásticas de distanciamiento social. El tiempo para implementar las intervenciones varió desde los primeros quince días después de detectar el primer caso hasta más de 30 días. La efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas combinadas ha demostrado ser efectivas para reducir la transmisibilidad de la enfermedad, el colapso de los servicios de salud y la mortalidad. Cuando se controle el número de casos nuevos, es necesario mantener medidas de distanciamiento social, autoaislamiento y rastreo de contactos durante varios meses. La toma de decisiones políticas en este momento debe tener como objetivo optimizar las oportunidades de salvar vidas, reducir el colapso de los servicios de salud y minimizar el impacto económico y social sobre la población en general, pero principalmente sobre los más vulnerables.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19. AIM: To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems. METHODS: We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria. RESULT: Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives.

Antecedentes: Se requiere la mejor evidencia científica para diseñar intervenciones no farmacológicas efectivas para ayudar a los formuladores de políticas a contener COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Describir qué intervenciones no farmacológicas utilizaron diferentes países y cuándo las implementaron. También explora cómo las intervenciones no farmacológicas afectan el número de casos, la mortalidad y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud. MÉTODOS: Consultamos ocho páginas web de organizaciones transnacionales, 17 de medios internacionales, 99 de instituciones gubernamentales en los 19 países incluidos, y además, incluimos nueve estudios (de 34 identificados) que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. RESULTADOS: Algunos países implementaron restricciones de viaje, aislamiento de casos identificados y personas de alto riesgo. Otros combinaron varias medidas más drásticas de distanciamiento social. El tiempo para implementar las intervenciones varió desde los primeros quince días después de detectar el primer caso hasta más de 30 días. La efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas combinadas ha demostrado ser efectivas para reducir la transmisibilidad de la enfermedad, el colapso de los servicios de salud y la mortalidad. Cuando se controle el número de casos nuevos, es necesario mantener medidas de distanciamiento social, autoaislamiento y rastreo de contactos durante varios meses. La toma de decisiones políticas en este momento debe tener como objetivo optimizar las oportunidades de salvar vidas, reducir el colapso de los servicios de salud y minimizar el impacto económico y social sobre la población en general, pero principalmente sobre los más vulnerables.