Behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation improve COPD patients’ experiences of physical activity
Authors: Armstrong, M., Hume, E., McNeillie, L., Chambers, F., Wakenshaw, L., Burns, G., Marshall, K.H. and Vogiatzis, I.
Journal: Respiratory Medicine
Volume: 180
eISSN: 1532-3064
ISSN: 0954-6111
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106353
Abstract:Aims and objectives: The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients’ experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels. Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA. Results: There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to −0.3] points, p = 0.025). Conclusion: PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/36192/
Source: Scopus
Behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation improve COPD patients' experiences of physical activity.
Authors: Armstrong, M., Hume, E., McNeillie, L., Chambers, F., Wakenshaw, L., Burns, G., Marshall, K.H. and Vogiatzis, I.
Journal: Respir Med
Volume: 180
Pages: 106353
eISSN: 1532-3064
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106353
Abstract:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients' experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA. RESULTS: There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to -0.3] points, p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/36192/
Source: PubMed
Behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation improve COPD patients' experiences of physical activity
Authors: Armstrong, M., Hume, E., McNeillie, L., Chambers, F., Wakenshaw, L., Burns, G., Marshall, K.H. and Vogiatzis, I.
Journal: RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume: 180
eISSN: 1532-3064
ISSN: 0954-6111
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106353
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/36192/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation improve COPD patients' experiences of physical activity.
Authors: Armstrong, M., Hume, E., McNeillie, L., Chambers, F., Wakenshaw, L., Burns, G., Marshall, K.H. and Vogiatzis, I.
Journal: Respiratory medicine
Volume: 180
Pages: 106353
eISSN: 1532-3064
ISSN: 0954-6111
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106353
Abstract:Aims and objectives
The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients' experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels.Methods
In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA.Results
There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to -0.3] points, p = 0.025).Conclusion
PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/36192/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation improve COPD patients' experiences of physical activity.
Authors: Armstrong, M., Hume, E., McNeillie, L., Chambers, F., Wakenshaw, L., Burns, G., Marshall, K.H. and Vogiatzis, I.
Journal: Respiratory Medicine
Volume: 180
Issue: April-May
ISSN: 0954-6111
Abstract:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients' experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA. RESULTS: There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to -0.3] points, p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/36192/
Source: BURO EPrints