Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial
Authors: Arden-Close, E.J., Kirby, S.E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B. and Thomas, D.M.
Journal: Clinical Rehabilitation
Volume: 33
Issue: 7
Pages: 1139-1149
eISSN: 1477-0873
ISSN: 0269-2155
DOI: 10.1177/0269215519832942
Abstract:Objective: Explore qualitative differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB) versus usual care) in the BREATHE (Breathing Retraining for Asthma Trial of Home Exercises) trial of breathing retraining for asthma. Design: Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial. Setting: Primary care. Subjects: Adults with asthma (DVD and booklet, n = 261; F2FB, n = 132). Main measures: Baseline – expectancy about breathing retraining; follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months – self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; all time points – anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), AQLQ (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire). Results: No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (P < 0.05) indicated that at follow-up, F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVD and booklet participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing: 7.42 (1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVD and booklet)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%)). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to quality of life. In the DVD and booklet arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in quality of life at 12 months. Conclusion: Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31747/
Source: Scopus
Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Arden-Close, E.J., Kirby, S.E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B. and Thomas, D.M.
Journal: Clin Rehabil
Volume: 33
Issue: 7
Pages: 1139-1149
eISSN: 1477-0873
DOI: 10.1177/0269215519832942
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Explore qualitative differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB) versus usual care) in the BREATHE (Breathing Retraining for Asthma Trial of Home Exercises) trial of breathing retraining for asthma. DESIGN: Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial. SETTING: Primary care. SUBJECTS: Adults with asthma (DVD and booklet, n = 261; F2FB, n = 132). MAIN MEASURES: Baseline - expectancy about breathing retraining; follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months - self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; all time points - anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), AQLQ (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire). RESULTS: No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (P < 0.05) indicated that at follow-up, F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVD and booklet participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing: 7.42 (1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVD and booklet)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%)). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to quality of life. In the DVD and booklet arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in quality of life at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31747/
Source: PubMed
Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial
Authors: Arden-Close, E.J., Kirby, S.E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B. and Thomas, D.M.
Journal: CLINICAL REHABILITATION
Volume: 33
Issue: 7
Pages: 1139-1149
eISSN: 1477-0873
ISSN: 0269-2155
DOI: 10.1177/0269215519832942
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31747/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial
Authors: Arden-Close, E., Kirby, S.E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B. and Thomas, D.M.
Journal: Clinical Rehabilitation
Publisher: SAGE
ISSN: 0269-2155
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31747/
Source: Manual
Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Arden-Close, E.J., Kirby, S.E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B. and Thomas, D.M.
Journal: Clinical rehabilitation
Volume: 33
Issue: 7
Pages: 1139-1149
eISSN: 1477-0873
ISSN: 0269-2155
DOI: 10.1177/0269215519832942
Abstract:Objective
Explore qualitative differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB) versus usual care) in the BREATHE (Breathing Retraining for Asthma Trial of Home Exercises) trial of breathing retraining for asthma.Design
Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial.Setting
Primary care.Subjects
Adults with asthma (DVD and booklet, n = 261; F2FB, n = 132).Main measures
Baseline - expectancy about breathing retraining; follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months - self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; all time points - anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), AQLQ (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire).Results
No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (P < 0.05) indicated that at follow-up, F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVD and booklet participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing: 7.42 (1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVD and booklet)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%)). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to quality of life. In the DVD and booklet arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in quality of life at 12 months.Conclusion
Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31747/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial
Authors: Arden-Close, E., Kirby, S.E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B. and Thomas., D.M.
Journal: Clinical Rehabilitation
Volume: 33
Issue: 7
Pages: 1139-1149
ISSN: 0269-2155
Abstract:Objective: Explore group differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB), versus usual care) in the BREATHE trial of breathing retraining for asthma. Design: Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial. Setting: Primary care subjects: Adults with asthma (DVDB n = 261; F2FB n = 132). Main measures: Baseline - expectancy about breathing retraining; Follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months - self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; All time points - anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), asthma QoL (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire). Results: No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (p<0.05) indicated that: At follow-up F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVDB participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing 7.42(1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVDB)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to QoL. In the DVDB arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in QoL at 12 months. Conclusions: Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet, but practice is not related to QoL. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31747/
Source: BURO EPrints