This paper presents a rapid review of the literature for the components, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) people in-home and community-based settings. seventy-six studies were included: 57 home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HBPR) studies and 19 community-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR) studies. The benefits of HBPR on exercise capacity and health-related quality of life were observed in one-group studies, studies comparing HBPR to usual care, and studies comparing to hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation, although the benefits were less pronounced in the latter. HBPR reduced hospital admissions compared to usual care and was more cost-effective than hospital pulmonary rehabilitation. Most HBPRs were designed with low-density or customized equipment, are minimally supervised, and have a low intensity of training. Although the HBPR has flexibility and no travel burden, participants with severe disease, physical frailty, and complex comorbidities had barriers to complying with HBPR. The telerehabilitation program, a facilitator for HBPR, is feasible and safe. CBPR was offered in-person supervision, despite being limited to physical therapists in most studies. Benefits in exercise capacity were shown in almost all studies, but the improvement in health-related quality of life was controversial. Patients reported the benefits that facilities where they attended the CBPR including social support and the presence of an instructor. They also reported barriers, such as poor physical condition, transport difficulties, and family commitments. Despite the minimal infrastructure offered, HBPR and CBPR are feasible, safe, and provide clinical benefits to patients with COPD. Home and community settings are excellent opportunities to expand the offer of pulmonary rehabilitation programs, as long as they follow protocols that ensure quality and safety following current guidelines.

This cross-sectional study evaluated the perception of individuals with prediabetes/diabetes about their living conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify the facilitators, barriers, and reasons to remain physically active at home and adhere to recommended exercise. It included individuals with prediabetes/diabetes who had completed an exercise intervention, which started on-site and moved to a remote home-based regime due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were advised to keep exercising at home. The outcomes were assessed by a bespoke questionnaire that was developed by the research team, the Brazilian Portuguese adapted version of the Exercise Adherence Rating scale, and the Motives for Physical Activity Measure-Revised scale. Of 15 participants (8 female, 58 ± 11 years), most reported positive perceptions about their living conditions and few difficulties maintaining some physical activity at home. However, only 53.8% of them adhered to the recommended exercise. Time flexibility, no need for commuting, and a sense of autonomy were the main facilitators of home exercise, while a lack of adequate space was the main barrier. The descending order of median scores that were obtained in each reason for physical activity was fitness, enjoyment, competence, social, and appearance. Individuals with prediabetes/diabetes maintained some physical activity during the pandemic, mainly motivated by health concerns.