Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-295254


Background: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in data collection methods have been introduced in research to ensure continuity despite physical distancing and lockdown restrictions. However, little is currently known about the potential differences in information collected using these traditional face-to-face methods compared to the incorporation of virtual methods to address the above, particularly in studies involving older adults. Aims Our objectives were, therefore, to compare data collected during the pandemic using hybrid methods from older individuals participating in falls research to that collected through traditional face-to-face methods. Methods Participants comprised of individuals recruited to two fall studies which hurdled the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both studies recruited individuals aged 60 years and over with at least one fall in the past 12 months, and controls with no history of falls in the past 12 months. Pre-pandemic, individuals were interviewed face-to-face exclusively, those interviews after the start of the pandemic were conducted virtually with physical assessments conducted face-to-face to minimize physical contact. Cognitive, physical, and psychological status were determined using the visual cognitive assessment tool (VCAT), timed-up-and-go (TUG), functional reach (FR), handgrip strength (HGS), and the 21-item depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21). In addition quality of life, physical activity and social participation were also measured. Results Of the 145 participants (median age (interquartile range, IQR) of 73.5 (67-81) years), 69 (47.6%) were interviewed face-to-face, while 76 (53.4%) were assessed using a hybrid method. Participants in both groups had similar age, gender, ethnic breakdown, marital status, education levels, anthropometric measurements, and medication burden. More face-to-face participants had hypertension and fall compared to hybrid participants Differences were observed in presence of fall characteristics, with fewer fallers seeing a doctor and more fallers attending the emergency department after the start of the pandemic. After adjustment for baseline differences, participants interviewed using hybrid status had lower depression scores (odds ratio, OR (95% confidence interval, CI)=0.29(0.14-0.61) and stress scores (OR(95%CI)=0.33(0.15-0.72)), but greater fear of falling (OR(95%CI)=2.16(1.04-4.48)) and reduced social participation (OR(95%CI)=2.64(1.20-5.79)). Conclusion Alterations in recruitment and data collection methods to overcome pandemic restrictions should take into consideration potential differences in individuals who agree to participate as well as the influence of major life events on the psychological status of participants.

BMJ Open ; 11(10): e050362, 2021 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462962


INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) are common and disabling conditions that can result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but practical barriers to attending centre-based sessions or the need for infection control limits accessibility. Home-PR offers a potential solution that may improve access. We aim to systematically review the clinical effectiveness, completion rates and components of Home-PR for people with CRDs compared with Centre-PR or Usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR? ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Respiration Disorders , Adult , Exercise , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Quality of Life , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Treatment Outcome
Malays Fam Physician ; 15(1): 1, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-61707