S23将家庭运动训练纳入慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重住院患者的居家服务:一项混合方法可行性研究

R. Barker, LJ Brighton, J. Bayly, J. Walsh, C. Nolan, S. Patel, O. Polgar, J. Wenneberg, S. Kon, J. Wedzicha, M. Maddocks, M. Farquhar, W. Man
{"title":"S23将家庭运动训练纳入慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重住院患者的居家服务:一项混合方法可行性研究","authors":"R. Barker, LJ Brighton, J. Bayly, J. Walsh, C. Nolan, S. Patel, O. Polgar, J. Wenneberg, S. Kon, J. Wedzicha, M. Maddocks, M. Farquhar, W. Man","doi":"10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe uptake of face-to-face supervised outpatient-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is low. One commonly cited barrier is travel. Home-based PR may be an alternative setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether a co-designed home-based exercise training intervention, delivered alongside usual hospital at home (HaH) care post-hospitalisation for an AECOPD, is acceptable and feasible.MethodsA mixed method feasibility study was conducted including a parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) (control group: usual HaH care;intervention group: usual care plus home-based exercise training) with convergent qualitative components (interviews: patients, family carers, researchers;focus groups: healthcare professionals [HCPs]).Results16/132 patients screened were recruited to the RCT with 8 allocated to each group and one withdrawn prior to receiving HaH care (56% were male, mean [SD] age: 74 [9] years, median [IQR] FEV1: 29 [21, 40] percent predicted, 87% with an eMRC dyspnoea score of 4, 5a or 5b). Four vs eight and four vs seven attended four week and three-month follow-up assessments in the control and intervention groups respectively. There was no evidence of contamination in the control group. 25% of patients allocated to the intervention group were unable to receive the intervention due to Covid-19. The questionnaire-based outcomes were more complete and appeared more acceptable to patients than physical measures, with very poor uptake for physical activity monitoring via accelerometery. Qualitative findings (interviews: five patients, two family carers, four researchers;focus groups: PR and HaH service HCPs) demonstrated that trial and intervention processes were acceptable, clinically beneficial and safe, but did not explain the disparity between questionnaire-based vs physical outcome measure completion rates.ConclusionThe findings suggest an efficacy trial which investigates home-based exercise training integrated within a HaH service following hospitalisation for an AECOPD would be safe and acceptable to patients, family carers, HCPs and researchers alike, and is qualitatively felt to be of clinical benefit. However, additional piloting is required to optimise intervention fidelity and study processes given the low recruitment rates, high drop out of the control group and poor uptake of some physical assessments.","PeriodicalId":430324,"journal":{"name":"The new normal? Novel and remote strategies for pulmonary rehabilitation","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"S23 Integrating home-based exercise training within a hospital at home service for patients hospitalised with acute exacerbations of COPD: a mixed methods feasibility study\",\"authors\":\"R. Barker, LJ Brighton, J. Bayly, J. Walsh, C. Nolan, S. Patel, O. Polgar, J. Wenneberg, S. Kon, J. Wedzicha, M. Maddocks, M. Farquhar, W. Man\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundThe uptake of face-to-face supervised outpatient-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is low. One commonly cited barrier is travel. Home-based PR may be an alternative setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether a co-designed home-based exercise training intervention, delivered alongside usual hospital at home (HaH) care post-hospitalisation for an AECOPD, is acceptable and feasible.MethodsA mixed method feasibility study was conducted including a parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) (control group: usual HaH care;intervention group: usual care plus home-based exercise training) with convergent qualitative components (interviews: patients, family carers, researchers;focus groups: healthcare professionals [HCPs]).Results16/132 patients screened were recruited to the RCT with 8 allocated to each group and one withdrawn prior to receiving HaH care (56% were male, mean [SD] age: 74 [9] years, median [IQR] FEV1: 29 [21, 40] percent predicted, 87% with an eMRC dyspnoea score of 4, 5a or 5b). Four vs eight and four vs seven attended four week and three-month follow-up assessments in the control and intervention groups respectively. There was no evidence of contamination in the control group. 25% of patients allocated to the intervention group were unable to receive the intervention due to Covid-19. The questionnaire-based outcomes were more complete and appeared more acceptable to patients than physical measures, with very poor uptake for physical activity monitoring via accelerometery. Qualitative findings (interviews: five patients, two family carers, four researchers;focus groups: PR and HaH service HCPs) demonstrated that trial and intervention processes were acceptable, clinically beneficial and safe, but did not explain the disparity between questionnaire-based vs physical outcome measure completion rates.ConclusionThe findings suggest an efficacy trial which investigates home-based exercise training integrated within a HaH service following hospitalisation for an AECOPD would be safe and acceptable to patients, family carers, HCPs and researchers alike, and is qualitatively felt to be of clinical benefit. However, additional piloting is required to optimise intervention fidelity and study processes given the low recruitment rates, high drop out of the control group and poor uptake of some physical assessments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":430324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The new normal? Novel and remote strategies for pulmonary rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The new normal? Novel and remote strategies for pulmonary rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The new normal? Novel and remote strategies for pulmonary rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重(AECOPD)住院后,面对面监督的门诊肺部康复(PR)的使用率很低。一个常被提及的障碍是旅行。家庭公关可能是另一种选择。本研究的目的是确定共同设计的以家庭为基础的运动训练干预,与AECOPD住院后的常规医院(HaH)护理一起提供,是否可接受和可行。方法采用混合方法进行可行性研究,包括一项平行的两组随机对照试验(RCT)(对照组:常规HaH护理;干预组:常规护理加家庭运动训练),并采用相同的定性成分(访谈:患者、家庭护理人员、研究人员;焦点小组:医疗保健专业人员[HCPs])。结果筛选的132例患者中有16例被纳入RCT,每组8例,1例在接受HaH治疗前退出(56%为男性,平均[SD]年龄:74岁,中位[IQR] FEV1: 29[21,40] %预测,87%的eMRC呼吸困难评分为4,5a或5b)。对照组和干预组分别有4对8和4对7人参加了四周和三个月的随访评估。在对照组中没有发现污染的证据。分配到干预组的患者中有25%因Covid-19而无法接受干预。基于问卷的结果比物理测量更完整,更容易被患者接受,通过加速度计进行的身体活动监测的接受度非常低。定性研究结果(访谈:5名患者,2名家庭护理人员,4名研究人员;焦点小组:PR和HaH服务HCPs)表明,试验和干预过程是可接受的,临床有益和安全的,但没有解释基于问卷和物理结果测量完成率之间的差异。结论:研究结果表明,在AECOPD住院后,将家庭运动训练与HaH服务相结合的有效性试验对患者、家庭护理人员、HCPs和研究人员都是安全且可接受的,并且定性地认为具有临床益处。然而,考虑到低招募率、对照组的高辍学率和一些身体评估的不良吸收,需要额外的试点来优化干预的保真度和研究过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
S23 Integrating home-based exercise training within a hospital at home service for patients hospitalised with acute exacerbations of COPD: a mixed methods feasibility study
BackgroundThe uptake of face-to-face supervised outpatient-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) is low. One commonly cited barrier is travel. Home-based PR may be an alternative setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether a co-designed home-based exercise training intervention, delivered alongside usual hospital at home (HaH) care post-hospitalisation for an AECOPD, is acceptable and feasible.MethodsA mixed method feasibility study was conducted including a parallel, two-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) (control group: usual HaH care;intervention group: usual care plus home-based exercise training) with convergent qualitative components (interviews: patients, family carers, researchers;focus groups: healthcare professionals [HCPs]).Results16/132 patients screened were recruited to the RCT with 8 allocated to each group and one withdrawn prior to receiving HaH care (56% were male, mean [SD] age: 74 [9] years, median [IQR] FEV1: 29 [21, 40] percent predicted, 87% with an eMRC dyspnoea score of 4, 5a or 5b). Four vs eight and four vs seven attended four week and three-month follow-up assessments in the control and intervention groups respectively. There was no evidence of contamination in the control group. 25% of patients allocated to the intervention group were unable to receive the intervention due to Covid-19. The questionnaire-based outcomes were more complete and appeared more acceptable to patients than physical measures, with very poor uptake for physical activity monitoring via accelerometery. Qualitative findings (interviews: five patients, two family carers, four researchers;focus groups: PR and HaH service HCPs) demonstrated that trial and intervention processes were acceptable, clinically beneficial and safe, but did not explain the disparity between questionnaire-based vs physical outcome measure completion rates.ConclusionThe findings suggest an efficacy trial which investigates home-based exercise training integrated within a HaH service following hospitalisation for an AECOPD would be safe and acceptable to patients, family carers, HCPs and researchers alike, and is qualitatively felt to be of clinical benefit. However, additional piloting is required to optimise intervention fidelity and study processes given the low recruitment rates, high drop out of the control group and poor uptake of some physical assessments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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