Cargando…
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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397882/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36188808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2021.743441 |
_version_ | 1784772218774880256 |
---|---|
author | Horton, Elizabeth J. Ruksenaite, Justina Mitchell, Katy Sewell, Louise Newby, Christopher Singh, Sally J. |
author_facet | Horton, Elizabeth J. Ruksenaite, Justina Mitchell, Katy Sewell, Louise Newby, Christopher Singh, Sally J. |
author_sort | Horton, Elizabeth J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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; FEV(1) 55 ± 20% predicted) or home-based PR (n = 26; 68 ± 7 years; FEV(1) 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9397882 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93978822022-09-29 A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis Horton, Elizabeth J. Ruksenaite, Justina Mitchell, Katy Sewell, Louise Newby, Christopher Singh, Sally J. Front Rehabil Sci Rehabilitation Sciences 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; FEV(1) 55 ± 20% predicted) or home-based PR (n = 26; 68 ± 7 years; FEV(1) 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9397882/ /pubmed/36188808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2021.743441 Text en Copyright © 2021 Horton, Ruksenaite, Mitchell, Sewell, Newby and Singh. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Rehabilitation Sciences Horton, Elizabeth J. Ruksenaite, Justina Mitchell, Katy Sewell, Louise Newby, Christopher Singh, Sally J. A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis |
title | A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis |
title_full | A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis |
title_short | A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis |
title_sort | comparison of physical activity between home-based and centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled secondary analysis |
topic | Rehabilitation Sciences |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397882/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36188808 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2021.743441 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hortonelizabethj acomparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT ruksenaitejustina acomparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT mitchellkaty acomparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT sewelllouise acomparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT newbychristopher acomparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT singhsallyj acomparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT hortonelizabethj comparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT ruksenaitejustina comparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT mitchellkaty comparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT sewelllouise comparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT newbychristopher comparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis AT singhsallyj comparisonofphysicalactivitybetweenhomebasedandcentrebasedpulmonaryrehabilitationarandomisedcontrolledsecondaryanalysis |