Digital interventions for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

No SJR dataApr 19, 2021The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Using digital tools to manage long-term lung disease

AI simplified

Abstract

A total of 1518 participants across fourteen studies were analyzed to evaluate the effects of digital interventions on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Evidence for the impact of digital interventions on health behaviors, such as six-minute walk distance, is very uncertain.
There may be slight short-term improvement in quality of life, but it is not clinically important.
No clear benefits or harms of digital technology interventions were demonstrated in improving self-efficacy.
Long-term effects on dyspnoea symptoms with digital interventions may show improvement.
The overall certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias and variability in the interventions.

AI simplified

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with dyspnoea, cough or sputum production (or both) and affects quality of life and functional status. More efficient approaches to alternative management that may include patients themselves managing their condition need further exploration in order to reduce the impact on both patients and healthcare services. Digital interventions may potentially impact on health behaviours and encourage patient engagement.

OBJECTIVES: To assess benefits and harms of digital interventions for managing COPD and apply Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy to describe and explore intervention content.

SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 28 April 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing digital technology interventions with or without routine supported self-management to usual care, or control treatment for self-management. Multi-component interventions (of which one component was digital self-management) compared with usual care, standard care or control treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved with a third review author. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were impact on health behaviours, self-efficacy, exacerbations and quality of life, including the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). The minimally important difference (MID) for the SGRQ is 4 points. Two review authors independently applied BCT taxonomy to identify mechanisms in the digital interventions that influence behaviours.

MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analyses (1518 participants) ranging from 13 to 52 weeks duration. Participants had mild to very severe COPD. Risk of bias was high due to lack of blinding. GRADE ratings were low to very low certainty due to lack of blinding and imprecision. Common BCT clusters identified as behaviour change mechanisms in interventions were goals and planning, feedback and monitoring, social support, shaping knowledge and antecedents. Digital technology intervention with or without routine supported self-management Interventions included mobile phone (three studies), smartphone applications (one study), and web or Internet-based (five studies). Evidence is very uncertain about effects on impact on health behaviours as measured by six-minute walk distance (6MWD) at 13 weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.70 to 74.10; participants = 122; studies = 2) or 23 to 26 weeks (MD 14.31, 95% CI -19.41 to 48.03; participants = 164; studies = 3). There may be improvement in 6MWD at 52 weeks (MD 54.33 95% CI -35.47 to 144.12; participants = 204; studies = 2) but studies were varied (very low certainty). There may be no difference in self-efficacy on managing Chronic Disease Scale (SEMCD) or pulmonary rehabilitation adapted index of self-efficacy tool (PRAISE). Evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life may be slightly improved on the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ) at 13 weeks (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.90; participants = 123; studies = 2; low certainty), but is not clinically important (MID 0.5). There may be little or no difference at 23 or 52 weeks (low to very low certainty). There may be a clinical improvement on SGRQ total at 52 weeks (MD -26.57, 95% CI -34.09 to -19.05; participants = 120; studies = 1; low certainty). Evidence for COPD assessment test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is very uncertain. There may be little or no difference in dyspnoea symptoms (CRQ dyspnoea) at 13, 23 weeks or 52 weeks (low to very low certainty evidence) or mean number of exacerbations at 26 weeks (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence for the number of people experiencing adverse events. Multi-component interventions Digital components included mobile phone (one study), and web or internet-based (four studies). Evidence is very uncertain about effects on impact on health behaviour (6MWD) at 13 weeks (MD 99.60, 95% CI -15.23 to 214.43; participants = 20; studies = 1). No evidence was found for self-efficacy. Four studies reported effects on quality of life (SGRQ and CCQ scales). The evidence is very uncertain. There may be no difference in the number of people experiencing exacerbations or mean days to first exacerbation at 52 weeks with a multi-component intervention compared to standard care. Evidence is very uncertain about effects on the number of people experiencing adverse events at 52 weeks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear benefit or harm of digital technology interventions with or without supported self-management, or multi-component interventions compared to usual care in improving the 6MWD or self-efficacy. We found there may be some short-term improvement in quality of life with digital interventions, but there is no evidence about whether the effect is sustained long term. Dyspnoea symptoms may improve over a longer duration of digital intervention use. The evidence for multi-component interventions is very uncertain and as there is little or no evidence for adverse events, we cannot determine the benefit or harm of these interventions. The evidence base is predominantly of very low certainty with concerns around high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Given that variation of interventions and blinding is likely to be a concern, future, larger studies are needed taking these limitations in consideration. Future studies are needed to determine whether the small improvements observed in this review can be applied to the general COPD population. A clear understanding of behaviour change through the BCT classification is important to gauge uptake of digital interventions and health outcomes in people with varying severity of COPD. Currently there is no guidance for interpreting BCT components of a digital intervention for changes to health outcomes. We could not interpret the BCT findings to the health outcomes we were investigating due to limited evidence that was of very low certainty. In future research, standardised approaches need to be considered when designing protocols to investigate effectiveness of digital interventions by including a standardised approach to BCT classification in addition to validated behavioural outcome measures that may reflect changes in behaviour.

Abstract

Related papers