Introduction The effects of healthcare-related inequalities are most evident in low-resource settings. Such settings are often not explicitly defined, and umbrella terms which are easier to operationalise, such as ‘low-to-middle-income countries’ or ‘developing countries’, are often used. Without a deeper understanding of context, such proxies are pregnant with assumptions, insinuate homogeneity that is unsupported and hamper knowledge translation between settings. Methods A systematic scoping review was undertaken to start unravelling the term ‘low-resource setting’. PubMed, Africa-Wide, Web of Science and Scopus were searched (24 June 2019), dating back ≤5 years, using terms related to ‘low-resource setting’ and ‘rehabilitation’. Rehabilitation was chosen as a methodological vehicle due to its holistic nature (eg, multidisciplinary, relevance across burden of disease, and throughout continuum of care) and expertise within the research team. Qualitative content analysis through an inductive approach was used. Results A total of 410 codes were derived from 48 unique articles within the field of rehabilitation, grouped into 63 content categories, and identified nine major themes relating to the term ‘low-resource setting’. Themes that emerged relate to (1) financial pressure, (2) suboptimal healthcare service delivery, (3) underdeveloped infrastructure, (4) paucity of knowledge, (5) research challenges and considerations, (6) restricted social resources, (7) geographical and environmental factors, (8) human resource limitations and (9) the influence of beliefs and practices. Conclusion The emerging themes may assist with (1) the groundwork needed to unravel ‘low-resource settings’ in health-related research, (2) moving away from assumptive umbrella terms like ‘low-to-middle-income countries’ or ‘low/middle-income countries’ and (3) promoting effective knowledge transfer between settings.

Objective Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) availability, programme characteristics and barriers are not well-known in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, they were compared with high-income countries (HICs) and by CR funding source. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was administered to CR programmes globally. Need for CR was computed using incident ischaemic heart disease (IHD) estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study. General linear mixed models were performed. Results CR was identified in 55/138 (39.9%) LMICs; 47/55 (85.5% country response rate) countries participated and 335 (53.5% programme response) surveys were initiated. There was one CR spot for every 66 IHD patients in LMICs (vs 3.4 in HICs). CR was most often paid by patients in LMICs (n=212, 65.0%) versus government in HICs (n=444, 60.2%; p<0.001). Over 85% of programmes accepted guideline-indicated patients. Cardiologists (n=266, 89.3%), nurses (n=234, 79.6%; vs 544, 91.7% in HICs, p=0.001) and physiotherapists (n=233, 78.7%) were the most common providers on CR teams (mean=5.8±2.8/programme). Programmes offered 7.3±1.8/10 core components (vs 7.9±1.7 in HICs, p<0.01) over 33.7±30.7 sessions (significantly greater in publicly funded programmes; p<0.001). Publicly funded programmes were more likely to have social workers and psychologists on staff, and to offer tobacco cessation and psychosocial counselling. Conclusion CR is only available in 40% of LMICs, but where offered is fairly consistent with guidelines. Governments should enact policies to reimburse CR so patients do not pay out-of-pocket.

Evidence supporting the effectiveness of aerobic training, specific for fatigue, in severely fatigued patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is lacking. To estimate the effectiveness of aerobic training on MS-related fatigue and societal participation in ambulant patients with severe MS-related fatigue. Patients (N = 90) with severe MS-related fatigue were allocated to 16-week aerobic training or control intervention. Primary outcomes were perceived fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20r) fatigue subscale) and societal participation. An improvement of ⩾8 points on the CIS20r fatigue subscale was considered clinically relevant. Outcomes were assessed by a blinded observer at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months. Of the 89 patients that started treatment (median Expanded Disability Status Scale (interquartile range), 3.0 (2.0–3.6); mean CIS20r fatigue subscale (standard deviation (SD)), 42.6 (8.0)), 43 received aerobic training and 46 received the control intervention. A significant post-intervention between-group mean difference (MD) on the CIS20r fatigue subscale of 4.708 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.003–8.412; p = 0.014) points was found in favour of aerobic training that, however, was not sustained during follow-up. No effect was found on societal participation. Aerobic training in MS patients with severe fatigue does not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in fatigue or societal participation when compared to a low-intensity control intervention.