Perceived Autonomy Support in Telerehabilitation by People With Chronic Respiratory Disease: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Autonomy-supportive health environments can assist patients in achieving behavior change and can influence adherence positively. Telerehabilitation may increase access to rehabilitation services, but creating an autonomy-supportive environment may be challenging. RESEARCH QUESTION: To what degree does telerehabilitation provide an autonomy-supportive environment? What is the patient experience of an 8-week telerehabilitation program? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals undertaking telerehabilitation or center-based pulmonary rehabilitation within a larger randomized controlled equivalence trial completed the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ; short form) to assess perceived autonomy support. Telerehabilitation participants were invited 1:1 to undertake semistructured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically to identify major themes and subthemes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six participants (n = 69 telerehabilitation) completed the HCCQ and 30 telerehabilitation participants (42%) undertook interviews. HCCQ summary scores indicated that participants strongly agreed that the telerehabilitation environment was autonomy supportive, which was similar to center-based participants (HCCQ summary score, P = .6; individual HCCQ items, P ≥ .3). Telerehabilitation interview data supported quantitative findings identifying five major themes, with subthemes, as follows: (1) making it easier to participate in pulmonary rehabilitation, because telerehabilitation was convenient, saved time and money, and offered flexibility; (2) receiving support in a variety of ways, including opportunities for peer support and receiving an individualized program guided by expert staff; (3) internal and external motivation to exercise as a consequence of being in a supervised group, seeing results for effort, and being inspired by others; (4) achieving success through provision of equipment and processes to prepare and support operation of equipment and technology; and (5) after the rehabilitation program, continuing to exercise, but dealing with feelings of loss. INTERPRETATION: Telerehabilitation was perceived as an autonomy-supportive environment, in part by making it easier to undertake pulmonary rehabilitation. Support for behavior change, understanding, and motivation were derived from clinicians and patient-peers. The extent to which autonomy support translates into ongoing self-management and behavior change is not clear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; No.: ACTRN12616000360415; URL: https://anzctr.org.au/.

Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

RATIONALE: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. This study investigated whether home-based telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease. METHODS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with assessor blinding, powered for equivalence was undertaken. Individuals with a chronic respiratory disease referred to pulmonary rehabilitation at four participating sites (one rural) were eligible and randomised using concealed allocation to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation. Both programmes were two times per week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire Dyspnoea (CRQ-D) domain at end-rehabilitation, with a prespecified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Follow-up was at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, symptoms, self-efficacy and psychological well-being. RESULTS: 142 participants were randomised to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation with 96% and 97% included in the intention-to-treat analysis, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for any outcome at either time point. Both groups achieved meaningful improvement in dyspnoea and exercise capacity at end-rehabilitation. However, we were unable to confirm equivalence of telerehabilitation for the primary outcome ΔCRQ-D at end-rehabilitation (mean difference (MD) (95% CI) -1 point (-3 to 1)), and inferiority of telerehabilitation could not be excluded at either time point (12-month follow-up: MD -1 point (95% CI -4 to 1)). At end-rehabilitation, telerehabilitation demonstrated equivalence for 6-minute walk distance (MD -6 m, 95% CI -26 to 15) with possibly superiority of telerehabilitation at 12 months (MD 14 m, 95% CI -10 to 38). CONCLUSION: telerehabilitation may not be equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for all outcomes, but is safe and achieves clinically meaningful benefits. When centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation is not available, telerehabilitation may provide an alternative programme model. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACtelerehabilitationN12616000360415.

Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation early after hospitalisation in COPD (early HomeBase): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by exacerbations of respiratory disease, frequently requiring hospital admission. Pulmonary rehabilitation can reduce the likelihood of future hospitalisation, but programme uptake is poor. This study aims to compare hospital readmission rates, clinical outcomes and costs between people with COPD who undertake a home-based programme of pulmonary rehabilitation commenced early (within 2 weeks) of hospital discharge with usual care. METHODS: A multisite randomised controlled trial, powered for superiority, will be conducted in Australia. Eligible patients admitted to one of the participating sites for an exacerbation of COPD will be invited to participate. Participants will be randomised 1:1. Intervention group participants will undertake an 8-week programme of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation commencing within 2 weeks of hospital discharge. Control group participants will receive usual care and a weekly phone call for attention control. Outcomes will be measured by a blinded assessor at baseline, after the intervention (week 9-10 posthospital discharge), and at 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome is hospital readmission at 12 months follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics approval for all sites provided by Alfred Health (Project 51216). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and lay publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001122145.

Early home-based pulmonary rehabilitation following acute exacerbation of COPD: A feasibility study using an action research approach.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves function, reduces symptoms and decreases healthcare usage in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) following an acute exacerbation (AECOPD). However, rehabilitation uptake rates are low. This study aimed to address barriers to uptake and completion of PR following AECOPD. METHODS: An action research approach was used to reflect on study feasibility, and to plan and implement an improved protocol. Phase I tested the feasibility of home-based PR started early after AECOPD. Phase II used qualitative interviews to identified potential barriers to program uptake. Phase III re-tested the program with changes to recruitment and assessment strategies. RESULTS: Phase I: From 97 screened patients, 26 were eligible and 10 (38%) started home-based PR. Eight participants undertook ≥70% of PR sessions, achieving clinically meaningful improvement in 6-minute walk distance (mean (SD) change 76 (60) m) and chronic respiratory disease questionnaire total score (15 (21) units). Phase II: Potential barriers to uptake of home-based PR included access issues, confidence to exercise, and lack of information about PR benefits. Phase III: From 77 screened patients, 23 were eligible and 5 (22%) started the program. DISCUSSION: Home-based PR improved clinical outcomes, but program eligibility and uptake remain challenging. Efforts should be made to ensure PR program eligibility criteria are broad enough to accommodate patient needs, and new ways of engaging patients are needed to improve PR uptake after AECOPD.

The Utility of the Sit-to-Stand Test for Inpatients in the Acute Hospital Setting After Lung Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement of physical function is important to guide physical therapy for patients post-lung transplantation (LTx). The Sit-to-Stand (STS) test has proven utility in chronic disease, but psychometric properties post-LTx are unknown. The study aimed to assess reliability, validity, responsiveness, and feasibility of the 60-second STS post-LTx. METHODS: This was a measurement study in 62 inpatients post-LTx (31 acute postoperative; 31 medical readmissions). Interrater reliability was assessed with 2 STS tests undertaken by different assessors at baseline. Known group validity was assessed by comparing STS repetitions in postoperative and medical groups. Content validity was assessed using comparisons to knee extensor and grip strength, measured with hand-held dynamometry. Criterion validity was assessed by comparison of STS repetitions and 6-minute walk distance postoperatively. Responsiveness was assessed using effect sizes over inpatient admission. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) age was 62 (56-67) years; time post-LTx was 5 (5-7) days postoperative and 696 (244-1849) days for medical readmissions. Interrater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient type 2,1 = 0.96), with a mean learning effect of 2 repetitions. Repetitions were greater for medical at baseline (mean 18 vs 8). More STS repetitions were associated with greater knee extensor strength (postoperative r = 0.57; medical r = 0.47) and 6-minute walk distance (postoperative r = 0.68). Effect sizes were 0.94 and 0.09, with a floor effect of 23% and 3% at baseline (postoperative/medical) improving to 10% at discharge. Patients incapable of attempting a STS test were excluded, reducing generalizability to critical care. Physical rehabilitation was not standardized, possibly reducing responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The 60-second STS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and moderate validity and was responsive to change postoperatively. IMPACT: The 60-second STS represents a safe, feasible functional performance tool for inpatients post-LTx. Two tests should be completed at each time point.

The timing and extent of acute physiotherapy involvement following lung transplantation: An observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physiotherapy "standard care" for the acute post lung transplant recipient has not yet been documented. We aimed to analyse how soon patients commence exercise and how much time is dedicated to this during physiotherapy sessions acutely post lung transplantation. METHODS: Prospective observational study of bilateral sequential and single lung transplant recipients for any indication, ≥18 years. Participants were observed during 6 physiotherapy sessions: 3 initial and 3 prior to acute inpatient discharge. Duration and content of each session was recorded, consisting of physical exercise and non-exercise tasks. RESULTS: Thirty participants, 20 male, median age 58.5 (interquartile range 54.5-65.0) were observed over 173 sessions. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was the most common transplant indication (n = 12, 40%). Bilateral lung transplant was performed in 90% (n = 27) of participants. First time to mobilise was 2 (2-3) days. Participants received 14 (12.8-23.8) sessions over 18 (17-31) days. The mean duration of physiotherapy in the initial phase was 107.8 (standard deviation 21.8) min, with 22.9 (7.5) min spent exercising. In the final phase, exercise time increased to 28.1 (11.4) min out of 84.1 (24.6) min. Assessment was the most common non-exercise component, at 26.6 (7.9) and 22.1 (12.5) min across the three initial and final sessions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE: Lung transplant recipients spent 21-34% of observed sessions performing physical exercise beginning 48 hr following surgery. Remaining physiotherapist time was spent on assessment, respiratory interventions, education, and patient-specific duties. The use of physiotherapy assistants, structured, progressive exercise programs, and continued workplace innovation may enable a higher percentage of physiotherapist supervised physical exercise in the future.

Effect of Upper Limb Rehabilitation Compared to No Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Lung Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a supervised upper limb (UL) program (SULP) compared to no supervised UL program (NULP) after lung transplantation (LTx). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Physiotherapy gym. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=80; mean age, 56±11y; 37 [46%] men) were recruited after LTx. INTERVENTIONS: All participants underwent lower limb strength thrice weekly and endurance training. Participants randomized to SULP completed progressive UL strength training program using handheld weights and adjustable pulley equipment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall bodily pain was rated on the visual analog scale. Shoulder flexion and abduction muscle strength were measured on a hand held dynamometer. Health related quality of life was measured with Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form health Survey and the Quick Dash. Measurements were made at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months by blinded assessors. RESULTS: After 6 weeks of training, participants in the SULP (n=41) had less overall bodily pain on the visual analog scale than did participants in the NULP (n=36) (mean VAS bodily pain score, 2.1±1.3cm vs 3.8±1.7cm; P<.001) as well as greater UL strength than did participants in the NULP (mean peak force, 8.4±4.0Nm vs 6.7±2.8Nm; P=.037). At 12 weeks, participants in the SULP better quality of life related to bodily pain (76±17 vs 66±26; P=.05), but at 6 months there were no differences between the groups in any outcome measures. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: UL rehabilitation results in short-term improvements in pain and muscle strength after LTx, but no longer-term effects were evident.

Is participation among children with intellectual disabilities in outside school activities similar to their typically developing peers? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent, context and experience of participation in outside school activities of children with intellectual disability (ID) and their peers with typical development (TD). METHODS: A systematic review was completed. Nine databases were searched and citation tracking performed. Included studies were in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, used a quantitative study design and compared children with ID to children with TD. Studies were assessed for quality using 15 items from the Downs and Black quality checklist. RESULTS: Four papers were included. Participants were reported to have similar participation in leisure activities. Children with ID were reported to participate in fewer community-based social activities, recreational, family-enrichment and formal activities than children with TD. CONCLUSION: Key differences in participation between the groups were identified. Given their methodological limitations and that most studies were published prior to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, further research is required.