Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial
2018
Overview
BackgroundStandardised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes offer an alternative model to centre-based supervised PR for which uptake is currently poor. We determined if a structured home-based unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD.MethodsA total of 287 participants with COPD who were referred to PR (187 male, mean (SD) age 68 (8.86) years, FEV1% predicted 48.34 (17.92)) were recruited. They were randomised to either centre-based PR or a structured unsupervised home-based PR programme including a hospital visit with a healthcare professional trained in motivational interviewing, a self-management manual and two telephone calls. Fifty-eight (20%) withdrew from the centre-based group and 51 (18%) from the home group. The primary outcome was dyspnoea domain in the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire Self-Report; CRQ-SR) at 7 weeks. Measures were taken blinded. We undertook a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) complete case analysis, comparing groups according to original random allocation and with complete data at follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was 0.5 units.ResultsThere was evidence of significant gains in CRQ-dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that home-based PR was non-inferior to PR in dyspnoea (mean group difference, mITT: −0.24, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.12, p=0.18), favouring the centre group at 7 weeks.ConclusionsThe standardised home-based programme provides benefits in dyspnoea. Further evidence is needed to definitively determine if the health benefits of the standardised home-based programme are non-inferior or equivalent to supervised centre-based rehabilitation.Trial registration numberISRCTN81189044.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subject
/ Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
/ Dyspnea
/ Dyspnea - prevention & control
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - complications
/ Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - physiopathology
/ Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - rehabilitation
/ Studies
/ Thorax
