Development of a toolkit for educators of the wheelchair service provision process: the Seating and Mobility Academic Resource Toolkit (SMART).

BACKGROUND: Insufficient wheelchair training among rehabilitation professionals has been identified as an important factor that hinders access to appropriate wheelchair services. The aim of this study was to develop a toolkit to promote the integration of wheelchair education into academic curricula of rehabilitation programs. METHODS: A participatory action research design was carried out in three phases: (1) development of the Initial and Alpha Versions involving secondary analyses of surveys (n = 72), interviews (n = 14), and academic training partners meeting presentations (n = 16); (2) development of the Beta Version based on feedback from collaborators (n = 21); and (3) development of the Launch Version based on feedback from participants attending presentations of the Beta Version at conferences, symposiums, and webinars (n = 94). RESULTS: Over 100 individuals participated in reviews of the Seating and Mobility Academic Resource Toolkit (SMART). Initial development addressed modifiable factors that perpetuate insufficient wheelchair education in academic curricula (e.g., limited awareness, limited expertise). Internal feedback on the web-based Alpha Version resulted in modifications of appearance and multimedia, structure and design, and navigation. External feedback then led primarily to fine-tuning the navigation of SMART. Positive reviews were received from global wheelchair professionals (i.e., educators, researchers, clinicians). The Launch Version of the SMART (smart.wheelchairnetwork.org) provides a forum for sharing and accessing resources to inform the integration and enhancement of wheelchair content into university rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSIONS: As an open-source open-access online "living document," SMART has the potential to promote the integration of wheelchair service provision education into academic curricula of rehabilitation programs. Future studies will explore the ease of use and the effectiveness of the SMART.

Effects of Pursed Lip Breathing on Exercise Capacity and Dyspnea in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A RANDOMIZED, CROSSOVER STUDY.

BACKGROUND: Although mainly described in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pursed lip breathing (PLB) could prove useful in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) by improving exertional tachypnea and respiratory control. This prospective, randomized, crossover trial aimed at evaluating the impact of PLB on dyspnea and walking distance in ILD patients. METHODS: ILD patients with total lung capacity of <80% predicted were randomized to 6-min walk tests using either PLB or usual breathing. Patients were crossed over for the second 6-min walk tests and served as their own controls. Ventilatory and metabolic variables were recorded using a portable metabolic cart and were compared at 1-min intervals. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included (mean forced vital capacity of 64 ± 10% predicted). Use of PLB resulted in lower mean respiratory rates and larger tidal volumes (both P < .001), worsened dyspnea ratings (post-6-min walk test Borg score: 5.2 ± 2.6 vs 4.2 ± 2.3, P < .001), and walking distance (403 ± 102 m vs 429 ± 93 m, P < .001). Twenty-nine patients (83%) described PLB as less comfortable than usual breathing. Both groups had similar total ventilation and oxygen saturation (all P > .05), but PLB resulted in higher mean oxygen uptake (13.9 ± 3.6 vs 12.9 ± 3.2 mL/kg/min, P = .02), even when corrected for walking distance (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In ILD patients, acute exposure to PLB did not improve exertional dyspnea, walking distance, or gas exchange, and was associated with higher metabolic demands than usual breathing. These results cast doubt on the usefulness of this technique in ILD patients and should be taken into account when tailoring pulmonary rehabilitation programs to this population.

Stair-Climbing Capacity as a Marker of Improvement Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential and safety of a stair-climbing test as a tool to monitor improvement following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Stair-climbing capacity was assessed in 139 patients with COPD before and after a comprehensive 8-week PR program, which included stair-climbing training. Stair-climbing capacity was assessed as the total number of flights of stairs climbed without stopping. A constant work rate endurance test (CET) was also performed before and after PR. Change in stair-climbing after PR (Δstairs) was compared and correlated to the change in endurance time (ΔCET) and, for 40 patients, to the change in COPD assessment test (ΔCAT) score. RESULTS: Most patients had moderate to severe COPD (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second = 54% ± 20% predicted). Stair-climbing capacity, endurance time, and CAT score improved after PR (2.8 ± 1.4 vs 8.3 ± 3.3 flights, 408 ± 272 vs 717 ± 415 seconds, and 20.0 ± 6.4 vs 17.6 ± 6.6 units, respectively; P value for all < .001). Δstairs was moderately correlated to ΔCET (r = 0.49; P < .001) and well correlated to ΔCAT (r = -0.71; P < .001). Patients with greater change in Δstairs had better baseline resting lung function and aerobic capacity. No adverse events were reported during stair-climbing. CONCLUSION: Stair-climbing is responsive to training in patients with COPD and is correlated to the change in CAT score following PR. Although the test requires further standardization, it could eventually be used as a simple and safe way to assess improvement following interventions in COPD.