Lee Verweel, Matisse LeBouedec, Adam Benoit, Cindy Ellerton, Anastasia N L Newman, Tara Packham, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks
{"title":"比较远程监督、自我管理和以中心为基础的慢性呼吸道疾病患者的坐立测试。","authors":"Lee Verweel, Matisse LeBouedec, Adam Benoit, Cindy Ellerton, Anastasia N L Newman, Tara Packham, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks","doi":"10.1177/19433654251389827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited evidence comparing center and home-based sit-to-stand (STS) tests in individuals with chronic respiratory disease (CRD). This study aimed to estimate the level of agreement and performance differences among center-based, remotely supervised, and self-administered STS tests in individuals with CRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A repeated-measures design was used to compare the 30-s and 1-min STS across 3 test conditions. The sample size was one of convenience and included subjects with CRD from an out-patient pulmonary rehabilitation program in Toronto, Canada. Bland-Altman analysis was used to estimate STS agreement across conditions, reporting mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Analysis of variance was used to estimate differences in STS performance across conditions, controlling for testing order. Secondary measures included indicators of safety and acceptability of the remotely supervised and self-administered conditions. All analyses were completed using Stata/BE 17.0 with a significance level of <i>P</i> ≤ .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven participants (mean age 69.4 ± 11.8 years, 52% female) completed STS testing in all 3 conditions. Bland-Altman plots revealed limited bias across all comparisons (mean difference < 1 repetition). LoA illustrated individual variation across comparisons for the 30-s STS (LoA -3.4 to 4.1) and 1-min STS (LoA: -7.4 to 8.6). Analysis of variance models indicated no effect of test condition on either 30-s STS (<i>P</i> = .12) or 1-min STS (<i>P</i> = .33). There was an observed order effect for the 30-s STS (<i>P</i> = .005) and 1-min STS (<i>P</i> = .005). There were no serious adverse events for remotely supervised and self-administered tests. The majority (≥ 80%) of participants found the instructions clear, and felt safe and confident while performing the remotely supervised and self-administered STS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Performance on the 30-s and 1-min STS did not differ across test conditions. Remotely supervised and self-administered tests may be safe and acceptable.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":"486-495"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Remotely Supervised, Self-Administered, and Center-Based Sit-to-Stand Tests in Individuals With Chronic Respiratory Diseases.\",\"authors\":\"Lee Verweel, Matisse LeBouedec, Adam Benoit, Cindy Ellerton, Anastasia N L Newman, Tara Packham, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433654251389827\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited evidence comparing center and home-based sit-to-stand (STS) tests in individuals with chronic respiratory disease (CRD). This study aimed to estimate the level of agreement and performance differences among center-based, remotely supervised, and self-administered STS tests in individuals with CRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A repeated-measures design was used to compare the 30-s and 1-min STS across 3 test conditions. The sample size was one of convenience and included subjects with CRD from an out-patient pulmonary rehabilitation program in Toronto, Canada. Bland-Altman analysis was used to estimate STS agreement across conditions, reporting mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Analysis of variance was used to estimate differences in STS performance across conditions, controlling for testing order. Secondary measures included indicators of safety and acceptability of the remotely supervised and self-administered conditions. All analyses were completed using Stata/BE 17.0 with a significance level of <i>P</i> ≤ .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven participants (mean age 69.4 ± 11.8 years, 52% female) completed STS testing in all 3 conditions. Bland-Altman plots revealed limited bias across all comparisons (mean difference < 1 repetition). LoA illustrated individual variation across comparisons for the 30-s STS (LoA -3.4 to 4.1) and 1-min STS (LoA: -7.4 to 8.6). Analysis of variance models indicated no effect of test condition on either 30-s STS (<i>P</i> = .12) or 1-min STS (<i>P</i> = .33). There was an observed order effect for the 30-s STS (<i>P</i> = .005) and 1-min STS (<i>P</i> = .005). There were no serious adverse events for remotely supervised and self-administered tests. The majority (≥ 80%) of participants found the instructions clear, and felt safe and confident while performing the remotely supervised and self-administered STS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Performance on the 30-s and 1-min STS did not differ across test conditions. Remotely supervised and self-administered tests may be safe and acceptable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"486-495\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433654251389827\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/1/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433654251389827","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing Remotely Supervised, Self-Administered, and Center-Based Sit-to-Stand Tests in Individuals With Chronic Respiratory Diseases.
Background: There is limited evidence comparing center and home-based sit-to-stand (STS) tests in individuals with chronic respiratory disease (CRD). This study aimed to estimate the level of agreement and performance differences among center-based, remotely supervised, and self-administered STS tests in individuals with CRD.
Methods: A repeated-measures design was used to compare the 30-s and 1-min STS across 3 test conditions. The sample size was one of convenience and included subjects with CRD from an out-patient pulmonary rehabilitation program in Toronto, Canada. Bland-Altman analysis was used to estimate STS agreement across conditions, reporting mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Analysis of variance was used to estimate differences in STS performance across conditions, controlling for testing order. Secondary measures included indicators of safety and acceptability of the remotely supervised and self-administered conditions. All analyses were completed using Stata/BE 17.0 with a significance level of P ≤ .05.
Results: Twenty-seven participants (mean age 69.4 ± 11.8 years, 52% female) completed STS testing in all 3 conditions. Bland-Altman plots revealed limited bias across all comparisons (mean difference < 1 repetition). LoA illustrated individual variation across comparisons for the 30-s STS (LoA -3.4 to 4.1) and 1-min STS (LoA: -7.4 to 8.6). Analysis of variance models indicated no effect of test condition on either 30-s STS (P = .12) or 1-min STS (P = .33). There was an observed order effect for the 30-s STS (P = .005) and 1-min STS (P = .005). There were no serious adverse events for remotely supervised and self-administered tests. The majority (≥ 80%) of participants found the instructions clear, and felt safe and confident while performing the remotely supervised and self-administered STS.
Conclusions: Performance on the 30-s and 1-min STS did not differ across test conditions. Remotely supervised and self-administered tests may be safe and acceptable.
期刊介绍：
RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
