Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly diagnosed and managed in primary care but there is evidence that this has been suboptimal, with low confidence expressed in providing interventions requiring behaviour change. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a general practitioner (GP)–physiotherapist partnership in the diagnosis and management of COPD in primary care and to explore the experiences of participants during the implementation of the model. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists (n = 3), GPs (n = 2), practice nurses (PNs) (n = 2) and patients (n = 12) who had participated in the InNovaTivE Gp‐physiotheRapist pArTnErship for copD (INTEGRATED) trial. We sought to explore participants' views about their experiences and perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this model of care. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. Synthesis of the data was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework for clinician interviews and the health belief model for patient interviews. Results All clinicians felt that this integrated model helped to optimise care for patients with COPD by facilitating evidence‐based practice. GPs and PNs valued the physiotherapist's knowledge and skills relating to diagnosis and management, which was reported to complement their own management and improve patient outcomes. Patients reported a sense of empowerment following their appointments and acknowledged improved self‐management skills. However, physiotherapists reported many patients were already engaging in positive health behaviours. Responses were mixed on the effectiveness of the model in facilitating teamwork between clinicians with different perspectives concerning management, communication pathways and logistical issues, such as time and room availability, being cited as barriers. Conclusions An experienced cardiorespiratory physiotherapist embedded into a small number of primary care practices to work in partnership with GPs for COPD diagnosis and management was acceptable and viewed as beneficial for patients. Barriers relating to logistics and resources remain, which must be addressed to optimise implementation. Patient or Public Contribution Patient input was obtained from qualitative feedback from a prior study conducted by two authors and was used to refine the model of care to determine the added value of a physiotherapist integrated into the primary care team. This feedback was also used to refine the interview guides utilised in this study determine the acceptability of this model of care. We had health service involvement from the rehabilitation service of the local health district who were directly involved in determining study aims and establishing the project around the priorities for their chronic disease integration service. For example, this project aimed to engage with a less severe patient population in primary care who would benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation. The findings from this study will be used to further tailor the model of care to the needs of the public and patients. Trial Registration: ACTRN12619001127190

IntroductionPreoperative exercise training is recommended, when feasible, for people undergoing resection for lung cancer and has been shown to reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications and improve preoperative exercise capacity. However, preoperative exercise training programmes are not commonly available in the Australian clinical practice setting due to a range of factors including resource and time restrictions. We aim to describe the protocol to evaluate the implementation of an existing preoperative exercise training programme in people undergoing lung cancer resection in an Australian setting.Methods and analysisThis is an evaluation of a secondary objective of a study examining the effect of lung cancer resection on exercise capacity, lung function and symptoms of dyspnoea and quality of life. Participants will be prospectively recruited at the time of lung cancer diagnosis and planned surgical treatment through the lung cancer multidisciplinary team of a metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia. All participants will be offered the choice of participating in the preoperative exercise training programme which encompasses a hybrid gym and telerehabilitation programme of up to five sessions/week from baseline until surgical date. The programme will be evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance Framework including both quantitative and qualitative measures which will be analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis coded inductively.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval through the Northern Sydney Local Health District reference 2023/ETH01643 and has been registered prospectively. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and scientific conference presentation.Trial registration numberACTRN12624000359538.

ABSTRACT Background Mobile health (mHealth) provides innovative solutions to improve access to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). This study aimed to explore the experiences of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who undertook either an 8‐week home‐based PR with a mHealth application (app) (m‐PR) or centre‐based PR (CB‐PR). Methods Convenience then purposive sampling was used to recruit participants enrolled in a randomised controlled trial after completion or withdrawal from either m‐PR or CB‐PR. Participants undertook individual, semi‐structured interviews. Interview transcripts were inductively coded and thematically analysed using a critical realist approach. Results Thirteen m‐PR and 12 CB‐PR participants were interviewed (mean age (SD) 75 (8) years, 52% male). Four themes were conceptualised: internal motivators influence uptake and adherence, external motivators influence uptake and adherence, programme structure impacts practicality and experience, and living with and managing COPD and other health issues. Motivators for both programmes included improved fitness levels, feeling accountable to the programme and reinforcement from staff and peers. The m‐PR in‐app functionalities such as the daily task list were additionally motivational. m‐PR participants arranged the programme around their schedule while centred‐based participants arranged their schedule around the programme. Multi‐morbidity and illness were barriers to adherence in both programmes. The social network, environment and resources available to participants impacted their enjoyment. Conclusion This study adds important information for service providers considering implementation of mHealth PR models. Patient or Public Contribution Consumers co‐designed and user‐tested the m‐PR app. The qualitative data presented in this manuscript was obtained through interviews with consumers.

International statements have suggested the pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) model as an appropriate rehabilitation option for people recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). In this case series, we present our COVID‐19 telehealth rehabilitation programme, delivered within a PR setting, and discuss the management of our first three cases. All patients were male, with a median age of 73 years. Following hospital discharge, the patients presented with persistent limitations and/or symptoms (e.g. breathlessness, fatigue, and reduced exercise capacity) which warranted community‐based rehabilitation. Patients were assessed and provided with an initial six‐week rehabilitation programme supported via telehealth using a treatable traits approach. Patients demonstrated improvements in exercise capacity and breathlessness; however, fatigue levels worsened in two cases and this was attributed to the difficulties of managing returning to work and/or carer responsibilities whilst trying to recover from a severe illness. We found that PR clinicians were well prepared and able to provide an individualized rehabilitation programme for people recovering from COVID‐19. In the Australian healthcare context, it is early days in our understanding of the short and longer term rehabilitation needs of those recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) (novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2)). We present the rehabilitation journey of our first three cases, and discuss patient management and outcomes via a telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation model of care

Background: COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns led to the closure of most in-person pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Australia. Text message programs are effective for delivering health support to aid the self-management of people with chronic diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of a six-month pre-post text message support program (Texting for Wellness: Lung Support Service), and the enablers and barriers to its adoption and implementation. Methods: This mixed-methods pre-post study used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the Texting for Wellness: Lung Support Service, which is an automated six-month text message support program that included evidence-based lifestyle, disease-self management and COVID-19-related information. Reach was measured by the proportion of participant enrolments and demographic characteristics. Adoption enablers and barriers were measured using text message response data and a user feedback survey (five-point Likert scale questions and free-text responses). Implementation was evaluated to determine fidelity including text message delivery data, opt-outs, and intervention costs to promote and deliver the program. Results: In total, 707/1940 (36.4%) participants enrolled and provided e-consent, with a mean age (±standard deviation) of 67.9 (±9.2) years old (range: 23–87 years). Of participants who provided feedback, (326/707) most ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the text messages were easy to understand (98.5%), helpful them to feel supported (92.3%) and helped them to manage their health (88.0%). Factors influencing engagement included a feeling of support and reducing loneliness, and its usefulness for health self-management. Messages were delivered as planned (93.7% successfully delivered) with minimal participant dropouts (92.2% retention rate) and low cost ($AUD24.48/participant for six months). A total of 2263 text message replies were received from 496 unique participants. There were no reported adverse events. Conclusion: Texting for Wellness: Lung Support Service was implemented quickly, had a broad reach, with high retention and acceptability among participants. The program was low cost and required minimal staff oversight, which may facilitate future implementation. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of text messaging for the improvement of lung health outcomes and strategies for long-term pulmonary rehabilitation program maintenance.

Objective Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are emerging to support the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). This study aimed to explore the ease of use, satisfaction and acceptability of an Australian mobile pulmonary rehabilitation app (m-PR™) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods In this mixed methods observational study, participants with COPD were recruited following PR assessment. Participants were educated on m-PR™ which contained symptom monitoring, individualised exercise training with exercise videos, education videos, goal setting, health notifications and medication action plan. Participants used m-PR™ for 4–8 weeks. At baseline, participants were surveyed to assess level of technology engagement. At follow-up, participants completed the system usability survey (SUS), a satisfaction survey and a semi-structured interview. Results Fifteen participants (mean age 70 [SD 10] years, 53% female) completed the study. Technology usage was high with 73% (n = 11) self-rating their technology competence as good or very good. The SUS score of 71 (SD 16) demonstrated above average perceived usability of m-PR™. The satisfaction survey indicated that 67% (n = 10) enjoyed m-PR™ and 33% (n = 5) were neutral. Most participants found the different m-PR™ components somewhat easy or very easy to use (range 69–100%) and somewhat helpful or very helpful (range 76–100%). Interview responses revealed that m-PR™ elicited divergent feelings among participants, who reported both positive and negative feelings towards the app's features, the effort required to use it and data security. Conclusion The majority of participants found m-PR™ enjoyable, easy to use and helpful in managing their COPD. Further research is warranted to understand the effectiveness of mHealth to deliver PR.

This multi-centred, randomised controlled trial explored the effects of adding ongoing feedback to a 12-month unsupervised maintenance walking program, on daily physical activity (PA) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Participants were randomised to either an intervention group (IG) or a usual care group (UCG). During the maintenance program, the IG received ongoing feedback (telephone calls, biofeedback provided via pedometer and progressive goal setting) and the UCG received no feedback. The SenseWear® Pro3 Armband was used to measure PA. Of the 86 participants {IG = 42, (mean [SD]: age 70 [7] years; FEV 1 43 [16] % predicted); UCG = 44, (age 69 [9] years; FEV 1 44 [15] % predicted)} included at baseline, 43 had sufficient data to be included in the final analysis. There were no between-group differences in any of the PA variables from baseline to completion of the program (all p  > 0.05). Ongoing feedback was no more effective than no feedback in improving PA during a 12-month unsupervised walking program. Trial Registration: The trial was registered in the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12609000472279).

Background Evidence suggests that management of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in primary care has been suboptimal, in particular, with low referral rates to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a GP-physiotherapist partnership in optimising management of COPD in primary care. Methods A pragmatic, pilot, before and after study was conducted in four general practices in Australia. A senior cardiorespiratory physiotherapist was partnered with each general practice. Adults with a history of smoking and/or COPD, aged ≥ 40 years with ≥ 2 practice visits in the previous year were recruited following spirometric confirmation of COPD. Intervention was provided by the physiotherapist at the general practice and included PR referral, physical activity and smoking cessation advice, provision of a pedometer and review of inhaler technique. Intervention occurred at baseline, one month and three months. Main outcomes included PR referral and attendance. Secondary clinical outcomes included changes in COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, dyspnoea, health activation and pedometer step count. Process outcomes included count of initiation of smoking cessation interventions and review of inhaler technique. Results A total of 148 participants attended a baseline appointment where pre/post bronchodilator spirometry was performed. 31 participants with airflow obstruction on post-bronchodilator spirometry (mean age 75yrs (SD 9.3), mean FEV 1 % pred = 75% (SD 18.6), 61% female) received the intervention. At three months, 78% (21/27) were referred to PR and 38% (8/21) had attended PR. No significant improvements were seen in CAT scores, dyspnoea or health activation. There was no significant change in average daily step count at three months compared to baseline (mean difference (95% CI) -266 steps (-956 to 423), p  = 0.43). Where indicated, all participants had smoking cessation interventions initiated and inhaler technique reviewed. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that this model was able to increase referrals to PR from primary care and was successful in implementing some aspects of COPD management, however, was insufficient to improve symptom scores and physical activity levels in people with COPD. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx .

Aims To examine the implementation of a physiotherapist-driven spirometry case finding service in primary care to identify new cases of COPD and confirm diagnosis of existing cases of COPD. Methods Four general practices were recruited. ‘At risk’ participants (aged ≥ 40 years, current/ex-smoker) and people with ‘existing’ COPD were identified from practice databases and invited to attend an assessment with a cardiorespiratory physiotherapist in each general practice. The physiotherapist performed pre/post-bronchodilator spirometry to identify or confirm a diagnosis of COPD (FEV 1 /FVC < 0.7). Outcome measures included number (%) of new cases of COPD, number (%) confirmed diagnosis of COPD and number (%) of high quality spirometry assessments with accurate interpretation. Results One hundred forty eight participants (mean age 70 years (SD 11.1), 57% female) attended a baseline assessment (117 ‘at risk’, 31’existing’ COPD) from 748 people invited. Physiotherapists performed 145 pre/post bronchodilator spirometry assessments. Obstruction on post-bronchodilator spirometry was confirmed in 17% (19/114) of ‘at risk’ and 77% (24/31) of ‘existing’ COPD. Majority of cases were classified as GOLD Stage II (63%, n  = 27). Quality of pre/post bronchodilator spirometries for FEV 1 were classified as A (68%), B (19%) and C (5%). Conclusion Physiotherapists integrated into primary care performed high quality spirometry testing, successfully case finding ‘at risk’ patients and identifying potential misdiagnosis of obstruction in some ‘existing’ COPD cases. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 – Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) contributes significantly to mortality, hospitalisations and health care costs worldwide. There is evidence that the detection, accurate diagnosis and management of COPD are currently suboptimal in primary care. Physiotherapists are well-trained in cardiorespiratory management and chronic care but are currently underutilised in primary care. A cardiorespiratory physiotherapist working in partnership with general practitioners (GPs) has the potential to improve quality of care for people with COPD. Methods A prospective pilot study will test the feasibility of an integrated model of care between GPs and physiotherapists to improve the diagnosis and management of people with COPD in primary care. Four general practices will be selected to work in partnership with four physiotherapists from their local health district. Patients at risk of developing COPD or those with a current diagnosis of COPD will be invited to attend a baseline assessment with the physiotherapist, including pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry to identify new cases of COPD or confirm a current diagnosis and stage of COPD. The intervention for those with COPD will involve the physiotherapist and GP working in partnership to develop and implement a care plan involving the following tailored to patient need: referral to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), physical activity counselling, medication review, smoking cessation, review of inhaler technique and education. Process outcomes will include the number of people invited and reviewed at the practice, the proportion with a new diagnosis of COPD, the number of patients eligible and referred to PR and the number who attended PR. Patient outcomes will include changes in symptoms, physical activity levels, smoking status and self-reported exacerbations. Discussion If feasible, we will test the integration of physiotherapists within the primary care setting in a cluster randomised controlled trial. If the model improves health outcomes for the growing numbers of people with COPD, then it may provide a GP-physiotherapist model of care that could be tested for other chronic conditions. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190 . Registered on 12 August 2019—retrospectively registered.