Centre-based Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research Articles

Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep following pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep. To examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep. Randomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD. 46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR. The addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.

Factors which influence participation in telerehabilitation – A scoping review of the literature

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a high-value intervention for people living with a chronic respiratory disease. Uptake and completion of PR remains low, and telerehabilitation provides an alternative model for remotely delivering PR, which may improve the reach of this intervention. While telerehabilitation is safe and likely equivalent to centre-based PR, little is known about the barriers to participation in telerehabilitation to date. This scoping review aims to better understand the factors influencing perception of and participation in telerehabilitation for people living with a chronic respiratory disease. Scopus, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched between July 27 to November 23, 2022. Articles were screened, and those fulfilling inclusion criteria were extracted to a standard template. Extracted data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. People living with a chronic respiratory disease perceive telerehabilitation to be convenient and flexible, but technically challenging and lacking in contact with clinicians and peer support. The experiences from a small number of people who have participated in these programmes counter this with praise for the therapeutic relationship they developed with their clinician and the social support they received

The Impact of Patient Preference on Attendance and Completion Rates at Centre-Based and mHealth Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Non-Inferiority Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is vital in the management of chronic respiratory disorders (CRDs) although uptake, attendance and completion are poor. Differing models of delivering PR are emerging in an attempt to increase the uptake and completion of this intervention. This study aimed to evaluate participant rate of attendance and completion of PR when given a preference regarding model of delivery (centre-based and mPR). Secondary aims were to evaluate the factors affecting patient preference for model of delivery and determine whether mPR is non-inferior to centre-based PR in health outcomes. A multi-centre non-inferiority preference based clinical trial in Auckland, New Zealand. Participants with a CRD referred for PR were offered the choice of centre-based or mHealth PR (mPR). The primary outcome was completion rate of chosen intervention. A total of 105 participants were recruited to the study with 67 (64%) preferring centre-based and 38 (36%) mPR. The odds of completing the PR programme were higher in the centre-based group compared to mPR (odds ratio 1.90 95% CI [0.83-4.35]). Participants opting for mPR were significantly younger (p = 0.002) and significantly more likely to be working (p = 0.0001). Results showed that mPR was not inferior to centre-based regarding changes in symptom scores (CAT) or time spent in sedentary behaviour (SBQ). When services were forced to transition to telehealth services during COVID-19 restrictions, the attendance and completion rates were higher with telephone calls and video conferencing compared to mPR - suggesting that synchronous interpersonal interactions with clinicians may facilitate the best attendance and completion rates. When offered the choice of PR delivery method, the majority of participants preferred centre-based PR and this facilitated the best completion rates. mPR was the preferred choice for younger, working participants suggesting that mPR may offer a viable alternative to centre-based PR for some participants, especially younger, employed participants.

Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Despite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care. Using Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence. We identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32-1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.88--0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.25-0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.15-0.17; p=0.87). Home-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.

Implementing a choice of pulmonary rehabilitation models in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HomeBase2 trial): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

IntroductionThere is compelling evidence that either centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are known health service and personal barriers which prevent...

Critically appraised paper: In people with chronic respiratory disease, telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation at improving exercise capacity but may not be for dyspnoea.

Critically appraised paper: In people with chronic respiratory disease, telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation at improving exercise capacity but may not be for dyspnoea.

Critically appraised paper: In people with chronic respiratory disease, telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation at improving exercise capacity but may not be for dyspnoea [commentary

Critically appraised paper: In people with chronic respiratory disease, telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation at improving exercise capacity but may not be for dyspnoea [commentary

Protocol for a single-centre mixed-method pre–post single-arm feasibility trial of a culturally appropriate 6-week pulmonary rehabilitation programme among adults with functionally limiting chronic respiratory diseases in Malawi

IntroductionMalawi has a substantial burden of chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) which cause significant morbidity and loss of economic productivity, affecting patients, families and health systems. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a...

Effect of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation on functional capacity in people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis\u2014a systematic review protocol

BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the common types of interstitial lung disease having high prevalence and mortality worldwide. As a result of patient-centred hindering factors of adherence to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), home-based PR is an alternate mode of rehabilitating individuals with IPF. This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR on functional capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with IPF.MethodsClinically stable, high resolution computed tomography and physician diagnosed IPF participants having modified Medical Research Council score below 5 will be considered for the systematic review. Studies involving home-based PR as an intervention to treat individuals with IPF will be considered. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised studies (with two groups followed up) are eligible to be included. Outcomes of our interest are functional capacity (6-min walk distance, shuttle walk test and incremental shuttle walk test) and secondary outcome measure would include assessment of quality of life and adverse effects of intervention. Electronic databases such as SCOPUS, Medline (PubMed and Web of Science), PEDRo and CINAHL will be searched using database specific terms. Additionally, forward and backward citations of included studies will be searched to identify potential records. Two review authors, independently, will conduct the screening, data extraction using a customised standard tool, and critical appraisal using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool of included studies. If data permits, meta-analysis will be conducted. In case of substantial heterogeneity, we will do a narrative synthesis. Subgroup analysis will be undertaken based on various contextual and interventional factors.DiscussionThis review will provide comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR to physiotherapists, policy makers and researchers who are interested in IPF management. Findings from this review may guide the development and evaluation of more robust evidence based home-based PR that aimed to improve functional capacity among people with IPF.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020213883.

A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis.

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a highly effective intervention for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Physical activity (PA) has been shown to increase after a centre-based programme, yet it is not clear if a home-based programme can offer the same benefit. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of home-based PR compared with the centre-based PR on the PA levels post 7 weeks of PR and 6 months follow-up.Method: In this study, 51 participants with COPD, of them, 36 (71%) men completed physical activity monitoring with a SenseWear Armband, at three time points (baseline, 7 weeks, and 6 months). The participants were randomly assigned to either centre-based supervised PR (n = 25; 69 ± 6 years; FEV1 55 ± 20% predicted) or home-based PR (n = 26; 68 ± 7 years; FEV1 42 ± 19% predicted) programmes lasting 7 weeks. The home-based programme includes one hospital visit, a self-management manual, and two telephone calls. The PA was measured as step count, time in moderate PA (3–6 metabolic equivalent of tasks [METs]) in bouts of more than 10 min and sedentary time (<2 METs).Results: Home-based PR increased step count significantly more than the centre-based PR after 7 weeks (mean difference 1,463 steps: 95% CI 280–2,645, p = 0.02). There was no difference in time spent in moderate PA was observed (mean difference 62 min: 95% CI −56 to 248, p = 0.24). Sedentary behaviour was also significantly different between the centre and home-based groups. The home group spent 52 min less time sedentary compared with the centre-based (CI −106 to 2, p = 0.039). However, after 6 months, the step count and time spent in moderate PA returned to baseline in both the groups.Conclusion: This study provides an important insight into the role of home-based PR which has the potential to be offered as an alternative to the centre-based PR. Understanding who may best respond from the centre or home-based PR warrants further exploration and how to maintain these initial benefits for the long-term.Trial Registry: ISRCTN: No.: ISRCTN81189044; URL: isrctn.com.

Pulmonary rehabilitation in a postcoronavirus disease 2019 world: feasibility, challenges, and solutions.

Purpose of reviewPulmonary rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Traditional centre-based (in-person) pulmonary rehabilitation was largely shut down in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing many centres to rapidly shift to remote home-based programs in the form of telerehabilitation (tele-pulmonary rehabilitation). This review summarizes the recent evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of remote pulmonary rehabilitation programs, and their implications for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation in a postpandemic world.Recent findingsA number of innovative adaptations to pulmonary rehabilitation in response to COVID-19 have been reported, and the evidence supports tele-pulmonary rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. However, these studies also highlight the challenges that must be surmounted in order to see its widespread adoption.SummaryThere are outstanding questions regarding the optimal model for tele-pulmonary rehabilitation. In the post-COVID-19 world, a ‘hybrid’ model may be more desirable, with some components held in person and others via telehealth technology. This would be determined by the infrastructure and expertise of individual centres, and the needs of their patients. In order to achieve a truly patient-centred pulmonary rehabilitation program, high-quality studies addressing these outstanding questions, as well as multidisciplinary collaboration, are required.

Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease: a randomised controlled equivalence trial

RationalePulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. This study investigated whether home-based telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based...

Feasibility of an online platform delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory disease

IntroductionSARS-CoV-2 has restricted access to face-to-face delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Evidence suggests that telehealth-PR is non-inferior to outpatient PR. However, it is unknown whether patients who have been referred...

Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease. To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation. We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation. We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.

Comparison of self-report and administrative data sources to capture health care resource use in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease following pulmonary rehabilitation

BackgroundThe optimal method to collect accurate healthcare utilisation data in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is not well established. The aim of this study was to determine feasibility and compare self-report and administrative data sources to capture health care resource use in people with COPD for 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled equivalence trial comparing centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Healthcare utilisation data were collected for 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation from self-report (monthly telephone questionnaires and diaries) and administrative sources (Medicare Benefits Schedule, medical records). Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of self-reports completed and accuracy was established using month-by-month and per participant comparison of self-reports with administrative data.ResultsData were available for 145/163 eligible study participants (89%, mean age 69 (SD 9) years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s 51 (SD 19) % predicted; n = 83 male). For 1725 months where data collection was possible, 1160 (67%) telephone questionnaires and 331 (19%) diaries were completed. Accuracy of recall varied according to type of health care encounter and self-report method, being higher for telephone questionnaire report of emergency department presentation (Kappa 0.656, p < 0.001; specificity 99%, sensitivity 59%) and hospital admission (Kappa 0.669, p < 0.001; specificity 97%, sensitivity 68%) and lower for general practitioner (Kappa 0.400, p < 0.001; specificity 62%, sensitivity 78%) and medical specialist appointments (Kappa 0.458, p < 0.001; specificity 88%, sensitivity 58%). A wide variety of non-medical encounters were reported (allied health and nursing) which were not captured in administrative data.ConclusionFor self-reported methods of healthcare utilisation in people with COPD following pulmonary rehabilitation, monthly telephone questionnaires were more frequently completed and more accurate than diaries. Compared to administrative records, self-reports of emergency department presentations and inpatient admissions were more accurate than for general practitioner and medical specialist appointments.Trial registrationNCT01423227 at clinicaltrials.gov

Home versus centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Home versus centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Innovative strategies to improve the reach and engagement in pulmonary rehabilitation.

Evidence of personal and health-system benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation are undeniable. However, the capacity of traditional centre-based models to both reach and appeal to the intended population of people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains difficult. It is well established that issues with access, suitability, referral, uptake, and attrition exist. Consequently, considerable energy has been invested into exploring innovative alternative modes of rehabilitation in an effort to increase the awareness and appeal, and expand the availability of pulmonary rehabilitation. The process of 'thinking differently' and 'pushing the boundaries' of clinical practice is underway, particularly in the United Kingdom and Australia, where new models of pulmonary rehabilitation are being evaluated. The number one priority is reaching the population of people with COPD and ensuring they are referred to rehabilitation services. Active case-finding in primary care, inviting health professionals and health consumers to pulmonary rehabilitation programs to increase understanding and awareness, and utilizing peer support via patient success stories, are just a few suggestions for increasing awareness of pulmonary rehabilitation. Once referred, engaging the population to complete a program is the next challenge. Marketing, patient co-design, alternative rehabilitation settings and modes of exercise training, use of technology, and focusing on modes which provide patient enjoyment and choice are all potential strategies to target in an effort to broaden the appeal and reduce the high attrition rate of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation programs. Reaching and engaging the target population in pulmonary rehabilitation is an important first step in people with COPD achieving successful outcomes from rehabilitation.

The Pulmonary Rehabilitation Adapted Index of Self-Efficacy (PRAISE) tool predicts reduction in sedentary time following pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

ObjectivesTo examine the predictive validity, minimal important difference (MID) and responsiveness of the PRAISE tool. DesignRetrospective data analysis from HomeBase trial of home vs centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. SettingTertiary health service. ParticipantsOne hundred and sixty-six participants with COPD (100 men) with mean age 69 (SD 9) years, FEV1% predicted 50% (19). InterventionsEight-week pulmonary rehabilitation program, conducted at the hospital or at home. Main outcome measuresThe 15-item PRAISE tool comprising 10 general and five pulmonary rehabilitation-specific self-efficacy questions. Predictive validity was examined by exploring the relationship between baseline PRAISE score and objective change in physical activity following pulmonary rehabilitation using the SenseWear Armband. The MID was evaluated using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Responsiveness was assessed with effect sizes. ResultsA higher baseline PRAISE score (indicating better self-efficacy) was an independent predictor of reduced sedentary time following pulmonary rehabilitation (P=0.03). A one point increase in PRAISE was associated with a decrease in sedentary time of 4minutes/day (95% confidence interval −7.8 to −0.4minutes/day). Anchor-based estimates of the MID were 0.5 to 1.5 points; however sensitivity and specificity were modest (area under the curve <0.70). Change in PRAISE score following pulmonary rehabilitation had an effect size of 0.21. ConclusionsThe PRAISE tool has predictive validity and may be useful to identify those with high self-efficacy who are more likely to achieve important health behaviour changes with pulmonary rehabilitation. The small effect size suggests that the PRAISE tool was not responsive to changes following pulmonary rehabilitation. Trial registration numberNCT01423227, clinicaltrials.gov.

Telerehabilitation versus traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation is an effective therapeutic intervention for people with chronic respiratory disease. However, fewer than 5% of eligible individuals receive pulmonary rehabilitation on an annual basis, largely due to limited availability of services and difficulties associated with travel and transport. The Rehabilitation Exercise At Home (REAcH) study is an assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled equivalence trial designed to compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation and traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease.MethodsParticipants will undertake an 8-week group-based pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training, either in-person at a centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation program or remotely from their home via the Internet. Supervised exercise training sessions will include 30 min of aerobic exercise (cycle and/or walking training). Individualised education and self-management training will be delivered. All participants will be prescribed a home exercise program of walking and strengthening activities.Outcomes will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, after completion of the intervention, and 12-months post intervention. The primary outcome is change in dyspnea score as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire – dyspnea domain (CRQ-D). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the efficacy of telerehabilitation on 6-min walk distance, endurance cycle time during a constant work rate test, physical activity and quality of life. Adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation between the two models will be compared. A full economic analysis from a societal perspective will be undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.DiscussionAlternative models of pulmonary rehabilitation are required to improve both equity of access and patient-related outcomes. This trial will establish whether telerehabilitation can achieve equivalent improvement in outcomes compared to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. If efficacious and cost-effective, the proposed telerehabilitation model is designed to be rapidly deployed into clinical practice.Trial registrationClinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register at (ACTRN12616000360415). Registered 21 March 2016.

Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for people with COPD: A qualitative study reporting the patient perspective.

This study aimed to document the perspective of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who underwent home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HBPR) in a clinical trial. In this qualitative study, open-ended questions explored participants’ views regarding HBPR. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Major themes from interviews included the positive impact of HBPR on physical fitness, breathing and mood. Participants valued the flexibility and convenience of the programme. Participants also highlighted the importance of social support received, both from the physiotherapist over the phone and from family and friends who encouraged their participation. Reported challenges were difficulties in initiating exercise, lack of variety in training and physical incapability. While most participants supported the home setting, one participant would have preferred receiving supervised exercise training at the hospital. Participants also reported that HBPR had helped establish an exercise routine and improved their disease management. This study suggests that people with COPD valued the convenience of HBPR, experienced positive impacts on physical fitness and symptoms and felt supported by their community and programme staff. This highly structured HBPR model may be acceptable to some people with COPD as an alternative to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.