| Participant or population: adults with a clinical diagnosis of COPD
Setting: home or non‐healthcare residential setting (sheltered housing)
Intervention: smart technology
Comparison: face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support |
| Hospital admission | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 239 (1 RCT; Moy 2015 at 12 months) | ⊕⊕ Lowa | Hospital admission not reported at 4 months. At 12 months. smart technology did not significantly impact the number of hospital admissions |
| Acute exacerbations requiring general practitioner (GP) visit and/or additional treatment | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 239 (1 RCT; Moy 2015 at 12 months) | ⊕⊕ Lowa | Acute exacerbations were not reported at 4 months. At 12 months, smart technology did not significantly impact the number of acute exacerbations |
| Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL)
assessed with SGRQ and CCQ
Follow‐up: range 4 weeks to 6 months | Mean HRQoL ranged across control groups from 0.08 to 1.686 | SMD in HRQoL in the intervention group was 0.22 lower (0.44 to 0.03 lower) | ‐ | 472 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕ Lowa | Lower scores on both SGRQ and CCQ indicate better HRQoL. The SGRQ scale ranges from 0 to 100, and a change in score of 4 units is regarded as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). The SMD in the lower score indicates better HRQoL with smart technology |
| Daily step count
assessed with pedometer
Follow‐up: range 4 weeks to 4 months | Mean daily step count was 3200 to 4617 steps | Mean daily step count in the intervention group improved by 864 steps (369.66 to 1358.46 higher) | ‐ | 230 (2 RCTs; Moy 2015 at 4 months and Tabak 2013 at 4 weeks) | ⊕⊕ Lowa | The follow‐up period differed between studies, from 4 weeks to 4 months. Smart technology significantly improved physical activity as seen in daily step counts |
| Self‐efficacy | ‐ | ‐ | | 0 | ‐ | This outcome was not measured in any of the included studies |
| Behaviour change: smoking cessation | ‐ | ‐ | | 284 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕
Moderateb | Results showed no significant effect on smoking cessation |
| Functional capacity (6‐minute walking test or similar) | ‐ | ‐ | | 0 | ‐ | None of the included studies measured this outcome |
| Anxiety and depression | ‐ | ‐ | | 0 | ‐ | None of the included studies measured this outcome |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect but may be substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect |
