Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabillitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial

Simple item page
dc.cclicenceCC-BY-NCen
dc.contributor.authorHorton, E.en
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, Katy E.en
dc.contributor.authorJohnson-Warrington, V.L.en
dc.contributor.authorApps, L. D.en
dc.contributor.authorSewell, L.en
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, M.en
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, R.S.en
dc.contributor.authorSingh, S. J.en
dc.date.acceptance2017-06-26en
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-08T10:51:29Z
dc.date.available2018-02-08T10:51:29Z
dc.date.issued2017-07-29
dc.description.abstractBackground Standardised 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 homebased unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD. Methods A 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. Results There was evidence of significant gains in CRQ dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that homebased 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. Conclusions The 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.en
dc.exception.ref2021codes252cen
dc.funderGlaxoSmithKlineen
dc.identifier.citationHorton, E. et al. (2018) Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Thorax, 73, pp.29-36.en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208506
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2086/15185
dc.language.isoenen
dc.peerreviewedYesen
dc.projectidN/Aen
dc.publisherBMJen
dc.researchinstituteInstitute for Psychological Scienceen
dc.titleComparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabillitation: a randomised non-inferiority trialen
dc.typeArticleen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Centre vs home PR Horton Thorax.pdf
Size:
546.29 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Main article-published format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
4.2 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

School of Applied Social Sciences