31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Home-based rehabilitation for COPD using minimal resources: a randomised, controlled equivalence trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Pulmonary rehabilitation is a cornerstone of care for COPD but uptake of traditional centre-based programmes is poor. We assessed whether home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, delivered using minimal resources, had equivalent outcomes to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.

          Methods

          A randomised controlled equivalence trial with 12 months follow-up. Participants with stable COPD were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation by either the standard outpatient centre-based model, or a new home-based model including one home visit and seven once-weekly telephone calls from a physiotherapist. The primary outcome was change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD).

          Results

          We enrolled 166 participants to receive centre-based rehabilitation (n=86) or home-based rehabilitation (n=80). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed non-inferiority of home-based rehabilitation for 6MWD at end-rehabilitation and the confidence interval (CI) did not rule out superiority (mean difference favouring home group 18.6 m, 95% CI −3.3 to 40.7). At 12 months the CI did not exclude inferiority (−5.1 m, −29.2 to 18.9). Between-group differences for dyspnoea-related quality of life did not rule out superiority of home-based rehabilitation at programme completion (1.6 points, −0.3 to 3.5) and groups were equivalent at 12 months (0.05 points, −2.0 to 2.1). The per-protocol analysis showed the same pattern of findings. Neither group maintained postrehabilitation gains at 12 months.

          Conclusions

          This home-based pulmonary rehabilitation model, delivered with minimal resources, produced short-term clinical outcomes that were equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Neither model was effective in maintaining gains at 12 months. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation could be considered for people with COPD who cannot access centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.

          Trial registration number

          NCT01423227, clinicaltrials.gov.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

          Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An Official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Policy Statement: Enhancing Implementation, Use, and Delivery of Pulmonary Rehabilitation.

            Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated physiological, symptom-reducing, psychosocial, and health economic benefits for patients with chronic respiratory diseases, yet it is underutilized worldwide. Insufficient funding, resources, and reimbursement; lack of healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge; and additional patient-related barriers all contribute to the gap between the knowledge of the science and benefits of PR and the actual delivery of PR services to suitable patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Differences in content and organisational aspects of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes.

              The aim was to study the overall content and organisational aspects of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes from a global perspective in order to get an initial appraisal on the degree of heterogeneity worldwide. A 12-question survey on content and organisational aspects was completed by representatives of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes that had previously participated in the European Respiratory Society (ERS) COPD Audit. Moreover, all ERS members affiliated with the ERS Rehabilitation and Chronic Care and/or Physiotherapists Scientific Groups, all members of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and all American Thoracic Society Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly members were asked to complete the survey via multiple e-mailings. The survey has been completed by representatives of 430 centres from 40 countries. The findings demonstrate large differences among pulmonary rehabilitation programmes across continents for all aspects that were surveyed, including the setting, the case mix of individuals with a chronic respiratory disease, composition of the pulmonary rehabilitation team, completion rates, methods of referral and types of reimbursement. The current findings stress the importance of future development of processes and performance metrics to monitor pulmonary rehabilitation programmes, to be able to start international benchmarking, and to provide recommendations for international standards based on evidence and best practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Thorax
                Thorax
                thoraxjnl
                thorax
                Thorax
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0040-6376
                1468-3296
                January 2017
                26 September 2016
                : 72
                : 1
                : 57-65
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Discipline of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Alfred Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ]Institute for Breathing and Sleep , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ]The Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [5 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Austin Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [6 ]Department of Public Health, La Trobe University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [7 ]Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Anne E Holland, La Trobe University Clinical School, Alfred Health, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; a.holland@ 123456alfred.org.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2061-845X
                Article
                thoraxjnl-2016-208514
                10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208514
                5329049
                27672116
                2d47b30a-7a44-472f-991d-398634c724c8
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 19 February 2016
                : 30 July 2016
                : 15 August 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: National Health and Medical Research Council, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000925;
                Award ID: 1046353
                Funded by: Lung Foundation Australia, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006630;
                Categories
                1506
                Rehabilitation
                Original article
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Surgery
                pulmonary rehabilitation
                Surgery
                pulmonary rehabilitation

                Comments

                Comment on this article