Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
2 result(s) for "Koulopoulou, Maria"
Sort by:
Singing for lung health following completion of pulmonary rehabilitation: feasibility of a randomised controlled trial
BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a highly effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory disease; however, it is not known how best to sustain its benefits. Clinical trials are needed to establish if participation in singing for lung health (SLH) groups following PR will improve health-related quality of life, healthcare utilisation and exercise capacity compared with usual care. A feasibility study would help to guide development of these trials.MethodsIn a multicentre, mixed-methods randomised controlled feasibility trial, PR participants at four sites were prescreened at baseline assessment. An SLH taster session was included routinely as part of the PR programmes. Eligible PR completers were invited to take part in the trial and randomised to usual care or a 12-week SLH course. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rate, intervention compliance (at least 8/12 sessions) and health economic analysis. Interviews with participants and study personnel were undertaken and thematic analysis of the results was completed.ResultsBetween October 2022 and November 2023, 1311 patients were assessed to start PR, 838 completed. Of those completing, 243 were ineligible to take part (predominantly due to vaccination status and excluded diagnoses for PR referral), and 531 declined. 64 people (33 female, mean (SD) age 69 (12), 41 ethnically white, 33 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 16 with asthma, 9 with interstitial lung disease, 6 with bronchiectasis) were recruited, with 30 (93.8%) SLH and 29 (90.6%) controls completing the study. 20 (62.5%) of the SLH group completed at least 8/12 SLH sessions. There was enthusiasm for a definitive trial from participants, clinicians and singing group leaders’ perspectives, based on positive experiences of trial involvement. Improvements to recruitment strategy, intervention structure, outcome measures and staffing were suggested.ConclusionsA definitive randomised controlled trial of SLH post-PR appears feasible, with acceptable uptake and completion rates.Trial registration numberISRCTN11056049.
Development and implementation of the lung volume reduction pulmonary rehabilitation tool to identify eligibility for lung volume reduction in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during pulmonary rehabilitation
Background Completion of pulmonary rehabilitation is recognised in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines as a key opportunity to consider systematically whether a respiratory review to assess potential suitability for a lung volume reduction (LVR) procedure might be appropriate. We describe the development of a simple decision-support tool (the LVR-PR tool) to aid clinicians working in pulmonary rehabilitation, to operationalise this process. Methods We took an iterative mixed methods approach, which was partnership-based and involved an initial consensus survey, focus groups and an observational study cohort at multiple pulmonary rehabilitation centres. Results Diagnosis (97%), exercise capacity (84%), breathlessness (78%) and co-morbidities (76%) were acknowledged to be essential items for assessing basic LVR eligibility. Collating prior investigations and assessing patient understanding were considered useful but not essential. Clinician concerns included; streamlining the tool; access to clinical information and investigations; and care needed around introducing LVR therapies to patients in a PR setting. Access to clearer information about LVR procedures, the clinician’s role in considering eligibility and how educational resources should be delivered were identified as important themes from patient group discussions. The LVR-PR tool was considered to be feasible and valid for implementation in a variety of PR services across the UK subject to the provision of appropriate health professional training. Clinicians working in specialist LVR centres across the UK who were not otherwise involved in the development process confirmed the tool’s validity using the content validity index (CVI). Interpretation The LVR-PR tool appears to be an acceptable tool that can be feasibly implemented in PR services subject to good quality educational resources for both patients and healthcare professionals.