A comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: A randomised non-inferiority trial

Elizabeth Horton, K.E. Mitchell, Vicki Johnson-Warrington, Lindsay D. Apps, Louise Sewell, M. Morgan, Rod S. Taylor, Sally Singh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)
24 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background Standardised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes offer an alternative model to centre-based supervised PR for which uptake is currently poor. We determined if a structured home-based unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD.

Methods A total of 287 participants with COPD who were referred to PR (187 male, mean (SD) age 68 (8.86) years, FEV1% predicted 48.34 (17.92)) were recruited. They were randomised to either centre-based PR or a structured unsupervised home-based PR programme including a hospital visit with a healthcare professional trained in motivational interviewing, a self-management manual and two telephone calls. Fifty-eight (20%) withdrew from the centre-based group and 51 (18%) from the home group. The primary outcome was dyspnoea domain in the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire Self-Report; CRQ-SR) at 7 weeks. Measures were taken blinded. We undertook a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) complete case analysis, comparing groups according to original random allocation and with complete data at follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was 0.5 units.

Results There was evidence of significant gains in CRQ-dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that home-based PR was non-inferior to PR in dyspnoea (mean group difference, mITT: −0.24, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.12, p=0.18), favouring the centre group at 7 weeks.

Conclusions The standardised home-based programme provides benefits in dyspnoea. Further evidence is needed to definitively determine if the health benefits of the standardised home-based programme are non-inferior or equivalent to supervised centre-based rehabilitation.

Trial registration number ISRCTN81189044
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)29-36
Number of pages8
JournalThorax
Volume73
Issue number1
Early online date29 Jul 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Rehabilitation
Lung
Dyspnea
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Motivational Interviewing
Group Homes
Rehabilitation Centers
Insurance Benefits
Self Care
Random Allocation
Telephone
Self Report
Chronic Disease
Delivery of Health Care

Bibliographical note

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Cite this

A comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation : A randomised non-inferiority trial. / Horton, Elizabeth; Mitchell, K.E.; Johnson-Warrington, Vicki; Apps, Lindsay D.; Sewell, Louise; Morgan, M.; Taylor, Rod S.; Singh, Sally.

In: Thorax, Vol. 73, No. 1, 2018, p. 29-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Horton, Elizabeth ; Mitchell, K.E. ; Johnson-Warrington, Vicki ; Apps, Lindsay D. ; Sewell, Louise ; Morgan, M. ; Taylor, Rod S. ; Singh, Sally. / A comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation : A randomised non-inferiority trial. In: Thorax. 2018 ; Vol. 73, No. 1. pp. 29-36.
@article{99665848b2844adbbc565f8be8f6d0a0,
title = "A comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: A randomised non-inferiority trial",
abstract = "Background Standardised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes offer an alternative model to centre-based supervised PR for which uptake is currently poor. We determined if a structured home-based unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD.Methods A total of 287 participants with COPD who were referred to PR (187 male, mean (SD) age 68 (8.86) years, FEV1{\%} predicted 48.34 (17.92)) were recruited. They were randomised to either centre-based PR or a structured unsupervised home-based PR programme including a hospital visit with a healthcare professional trained in motivational interviewing, a self-management manual and two telephone calls. Fifty-eight (20{\%}) withdrew from the centre-based group and 51 (18{\%}) from the home group. The primary outcome was dyspnoea domain in the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire Self-Report; CRQ-SR) at 7 weeks. Measures were taken blinded. We undertook a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) complete case analysis, comparing groups according to original random allocation and with complete data at follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was 0.5 units.Results There was evidence of significant gains in CRQ-dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that home-based PR was non-inferior to PR in dyspnoea (mean group difference, mITT: −0.24, 95{\%} CI −0.61 to 0.12, p=0.18), favouring the centre group at 7 weeks.Conclusions The standardised home-based programme provides benefits in dyspnoea. Further evidence is needed to definitively determine if the health benefits of the standardised home-based programme are non-inferior or equivalent to supervised centre-based rehabilitation.Trial registration number ISRCTN81189044",
author = "Elizabeth Horton and K.E. Mitchell and Vicki Johnson-Warrington and Apps, {Lindsay D.} and Louise Sewell and M. Morgan and Taylor, {Rod S.} and Sally Singh",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208506",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "29--36",
journal = "Thorax",
issn = "0040-6376",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation

T2 - A randomised non-inferiority trial

AU - Horton, Elizabeth

AU - Mitchell, K.E.

AU - Johnson-Warrington, Vicki

AU - Apps, Lindsay D.

AU - Sewell, Louise

AU - Morgan, M.

AU - Taylor, Rod S.

AU - Singh, Sally

N1 - Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background Standardised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes offer an alternative model to centre-based supervised PR for which uptake is currently poor. We determined if a structured home-based unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD.Methods A total of 287 participants with COPD who were referred to PR (187 male, mean (SD) age 68 (8.86) years, FEV1% predicted 48.34 (17.92)) were recruited. They were randomised to either centre-based PR or a structured unsupervised home-based PR programme including a hospital visit with a healthcare professional trained in motivational interviewing, a self-management manual and two telephone calls. Fifty-eight (20%) withdrew from the centre-based group and 51 (18%) from the home group. The primary outcome was dyspnoea domain in the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire Self-Report; CRQ-SR) at 7 weeks. Measures were taken blinded. We undertook a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) complete case analysis, comparing groups according to original random allocation and with complete data at follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was 0.5 units.Results There was evidence of significant gains in CRQ-dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that home-based PR was non-inferior to PR in dyspnoea (mean group difference, mITT: −0.24, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.12, p=0.18), favouring the centre group at 7 weeks.Conclusions The standardised home-based programme provides benefits in dyspnoea. Further evidence is needed to definitively determine if the health benefits of the standardised home-based programme are non-inferior or equivalent to supervised centre-based rehabilitation.Trial registration number ISRCTN81189044

AB - Background Standardised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes offer an alternative model to centre-based supervised PR for which uptake is currently poor. We determined if a structured home-based unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD.Methods A total of 287 participants with COPD who were referred to PR (187 male, mean (SD) age 68 (8.86) years, FEV1% predicted 48.34 (17.92)) were recruited. They were randomised to either centre-based PR or a structured unsupervised home-based PR programme including a hospital visit with a healthcare professional trained in motivational interviewing, a self-management manual and two telephone calls. Fifty-eight (20%) withdrew from the centre-based group and 51 (18%) from the home group. The primary outcome was dyspnoea domain in the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire Self-Report; CRQ-SR) at 7 weeks. Measures were taken blinded. We undertook a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) complete case analysis, comparing groups according to original random allocation and with complete data at follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was 0.5 units.Results There was evidence of significant gains in CRQ-dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that home-based PR was non-inferior to PR in dyspnoea (mean group difference, mITT: −0.24, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.12, p=0.18), favouring the centre group at 7 weeks.Conclusions The standardised home-based programme provides benefits in dyspnoea. Further evidence is needed to definitively determine if the health benefits of the standardised home-based programme are non-inferior or equivalent to supervised centre-based rehabilitation.Trial registration number ISRCTN81189044

U2 - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208506

DO - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208506

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 29

EP - 36

JO - Thorax

JF - Thorax

SN - 0040-6376

IS - 1

ER -