Mobile phone app-based or face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation in COVID-19 survivors

IF 1 Q3 NURSING
V. Atashi, Marzieh Hashemi, S. Haghighat, R. Sadegh, R. Sami, Mobina Bahadori
{"title":"Mobile phone app-based or face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation in COVID-19 survivors","authors":"V. Atashi, Marzieh Hashemi, S. Haghighat, R. Sadegh, R. Sami, Mobina Bahadori","doi":"10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_337_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is recommended as a standard, effective, and important treatment for COVID-19 survivors who remain symptomatic after the acute phase. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effect of mobile phone-based PR application with face-to-face PR on the quality of life, anxiety, depression, and daily life activities of COVID-19 survivors. Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental was conducted on 65 COVID-19 survivors during 2022. Convenient sampling was done based on the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (n = 31) received PR through a mobile phone application, and the control group (n = 34) received face-to-face PR. Data were collected before and after the intervention in both groups using a demographic information questionnaire, SF-12, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and Barthel scale. For all tests, a maximum error of 5% was considered. Results: The two studied groups had no statistically significant difference with respect to all the investigated variables at baseline (p > 0.05). After the intervention, the mean anxiety and depression score of the patients in the control group was significantly lower than the intervention group (t = −3.46, f = 63, p = 0.01). After our intervention, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean quality of life and daily life activity scores between the two groups (t = −0.68, f = 63, p > 0.05). Conclusions: The application of PR does not show a statistically significant difference in terms of improving the quality of life and daily activities compared with the face-to-face method; we suggest that the PR application be used as a cost-effective method when face-to-face PR is not possible.","PeriodicalId":44816,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research","volume":"116 1","pages":"699 - 706"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_337_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is recommended as a standard, effective, and important treatment for COVID-19 survivors who remain symptomatic after the acute phase. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effect of mobile phone-based PR application with face-to-face PR on the quality of life, anxiety, depression, and daily life activities of COVID-19 survivors. Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental was conducted on 65 COVID-19 survivors during 2022. Convenient sampling was done based on the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (n = 31) received PR through a mobile phone application, and the control group (n = 34) received face-to-face PR. Data were collected before and after the intervention in both groups using a demographic information questionnaire, SF-12, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and Barthel scale. For all tests, a maximum error of 5% was considered. Results: The two studied groups had no statistically significant difference with respect to all the investigated variables at baseline (p > 0.05). After the intervention, the mean anxiety and depression score of the patients in the control group was significantly lower than the intervention group (t = −3.46, f = 63, p = 0.01). After our intervention, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean quality of life and daily life activity scores between the two groups (t = −0.68, f = 63, p > 0.05). Conclusions: The application of PR does not show a statistically significant difference in terms of improving the quality of life and daily activities compared with the face-to-face method; we suggest that the PR application be used as a cost-effective method when face-to-face PR is not possible.
COVID-19幸存者基于手机应用或面对面的肺康复治疗
背景:对于急性期后仍有症状的 COVID-19 幸存者,肺康复(PR)被推荐为一种标准、有效且重要的治疗方法。因此,我们旨在比较基于手机的肺康复应用与面对面肺康复对 COVID-19 幸存者的生活质量、焦虑、抑郁和日常生活活动的影响。材料与方法:在 2022 年期间对 65 名 COVID-19 幸存者进行了准实验研究。根据纳入标准进行了方便抽样。干预组(n = 31)通过手机应用程序接受公关,对照组(n = 34)接受面对面公关。两组在干预前后均使用人口统计学信息问卷、SF-12、医院焦虑抑郁量表和巴特尔量表收集数据。所有测试的最大误差为 5%。结果两组患者在基线时的所有调查变量在统计学上无显著差异(P>0.05)。干预后,对照组患者的焦虑和抑郁平均得分明显低于干预组(t = -3.46,f = 63,p = 0.01)。干预后,两组患者的平均生活质量和日常生活活动评分差异无统计学意义(t = -0.68,f = 63,p > 0.05)。结论与面对面的方法相比,应用公关在改善生活质量和日常活动方面并没有显示出统计学上的显著差异;我们建议在无法进行面对面公关时,将公关应用作为一种具有成本效益的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
79
审稿时长
46 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信