Search

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has major benefits for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An enhanced PR program was developed with a self-management education intervention. The objective of our study was to evaluate the implementation of the enhanced PR program into a single centre. Methods: Pre-post implementation study consisted of two evaluation periods: immediately after implementation and 18 months later. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, outcomes included: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance. Results: Reach: 70-75% of referred patients agreed to a PR program (n = 26). Effectiveness: Clinically important improvements occurred in some patients in functional exercise capacity (64% of the patients achieved clinical important difference in 6-min walk test in the first evaluation period and 44% in the second evaluation period), knowledge, functional status, and self-efficacy in both evaluation periods. Adoption: All healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in PR (n = 8) participated. Implementation: Fidelity for the group education sessions ranged from 76 to 95% (first evaluation) and from 82 to 88% (second evaluation). Maintenance: The program was sustained over 18 months with minor changes. Patients and HCPs were highly satisfied with the program. Conclusions: The enhanced PR program was accepted by patients and HCPs and was implemented and maintained at a single expert center with good implementation fidelity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the most effective strategy to improve health outcomes in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although it has had limited success in promoting sustained physical activity. PR with a strong focus on disease self-management may better facilitate long-term behavior change. Objectives: To compare a newly developed enhanced PR (EPR) program with a traditional PR program on outcome achievement. Methods: In this randomized parallel-group controlled trial, PR classes were block-randomized to EPR or traditional PR and were delivered over 16 sessions each. The EPR program incorporated new and updated "Living Well with COPD" education modules, which had a stronger focus on chronic disease self-management. Fidelity of the intervention for content and delivery was assessed. Physical activity, self-efficacy, exercise tolerance, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were collected before, after, and 6 months after PR. Healthcare visits were collected 2 years before PR and 1 year after. Mortality was recorded 1 year after PR. Results: Of the 207 patients with COPD enrolled, 108 received EPR and 99 received traditional PR. Physical activity (steps) and self-efficacy improved from before to after PR in both programs, with no differences between groups. These effects were not sustained at 6 months. Exercise tolerance and HRQoL improved from before to after PR with no between-group differences and were maintained at 6 months. Visits to primary care providers and respiratory specialists decreased in the EPR program relative to the traditional PR program. EPR was delivered as intended, and there was no meaningful cross-contamination between the two programs. Conclusions: Enhancing PR to have a greater emphasis on chronic disease self-management did not result in a superior improvement of physical activity and health outcomes compared with traditional PR except for reduced resource usage from primary and specialist physician visits in the EPR program.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02917915). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: This study examined if ongoing support delivered by telephone following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) assisted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients to maintain health outcomes. Methods: Phase one (n =79) compared post-rehabilitation telephone-based support delivered by peers compared to usual care (UC). The second phase (n =168) compared post-rehabilitation support from peer educators, respiratory therapists (RT), or UC. Primary outcome variables were St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and the six minute walk test (6MWT). Measures were obtained at baseline, immediately following PR, and six-months post PR. Results: Six-month follow-up data for phase one was collected for 66 COPD patients (n =35 peer support, n =31 UC) and 142 for phase two (n =42 peer support, n =52 RT support, n =48 UC). Per-protocol and intention to treat (ITT) analysis in both phases found no significant group by time differences for SGRQ or 6MWT. Conclusion: Providing peer or RT support via telephone following PR was not more effective than UC for maintaining health outcomes. Practice implications: There are concerns with using peers to provide ongoing support to COPD patients. Additionally, COPD patients require a higher level of care than telephone support can provide. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]