ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Acceptability of pulmonary rehabilitation in Malawi: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective non-pharmacological intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), but its acceptability in Malawi was unknown.
objectivesTo explore patients' acceptability of PR at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre, Malawi.
methodsThis was a pre-post cohort study where participants were offered a two times per week hospital-based PR programme for 6 weeks, consisting of endurance and strengthening exercises. Following programme completion, face-to-face semistructured in-depth interviews with the participants were conducted. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using a deductive approach.
results10 adults (five females and five males) out of 14 invited (~70% uptake) participated in the PR programme and subsequent in-depth interviews. Five key themes emerged: (1) debilitating symptom experience of CRD prior to PR; (2) positive impact of PR on living with CRD; (3) contextual programme design improved participants' experience with PR; (4) one size does not fit all and (5) challenges and opportunities for home-based PR. Participants reported experiencing improvements in physical, psychological and social health associated with PR programme participation. The provision of transport was considered a key facilitator for PR programme completion. Realising the gained PR benefits, participants were willing to continue exercising at their homes.
conclusionThe PR programme improved the participants' perceived health status and was well-accepted. Addressing barriers related to transport facilitated immediate implementation while providing a challenge for the scaling and sustainability of PR beyond the project duration. These findings support the drive for shifting chronic care, including rehabilitation, towards primary care and community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospective; 27 August 2021; ISRCTN13836793.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.