Background: Pneumoconiosis remains a major occupational lung disease associated with progressive respiratory impairment, reduced functional capacity, and diminished quality of life. Non-pharmacological rehabilitation has been increasingly proposed as a supportive intervention; however, evidence regarding its effectiveness remains heterogeneous. Objective: This study aimed to systematically review and synthesize the available evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological rehabilitation interventions on functional capacity, quality of life, and psychological outcomes in patients with pneumoconiosis. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in major electronic databases and grey literature sources in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies evaluating non-pharmacological rehabilitation interventions in adults with pneumoconiosis were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of interest included functional capacity, health-related quality of life, and psychological well-being. Due to methodological heterogeneity across studies, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Results: Six studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The reviewed evidence suggests that structured rehabilitation interventions were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in functional capacity, particularly in structured rehabilitation programs, most consistently reflected by increases in six-minute walk distance exceeding established minimal clinically important differences in three studies. Improvements in health-related quality of life and selected psychological outcomes were also reported, although outcome measures and intervention protocols varied across studies. Significant improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnea severity, and health-related quality of life were reported. Conclusions: Non-pharmacological rehabilitation may provide clinically meaningful benefits for patients with pneumoconiosis, based on limited and heterogeneous evidence, particularly in terms of functional capacity and quality of life. Nevertheless, the current evidence base is limited by heterogeneity in study design and outcome reporting. Further high-quality, standardized trials are needed to strengthen the evidence and guide the clinical implementation of rehabilitation programs for occupational lung diseases.
Baurzhan et al. (Tue,) studied this question.