How long should Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation be? A randomised controlled trial of four-weeks versus seven-weeks

Louise Sewell, Sally Singh, JE Williams, MDL Morgan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

72 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The evidence of benefit for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes is established. However, the optimal duration of a PR programme is not known. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to assess whether a 4 week PR programme was equivalent to our conventional 7 week PR programme at equivalent time points of 7 weeks and 6 months.

Methods: One hundred patients (56 men) with stable COPD of mean (SD) age 70 (8) years and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 1.13 (0.50) litres were randomised to either a 7 week (n = 50) or 4 week (n = 50) supervised PR programme. Patients were assessed at baseline, at completion of the supervised PR programme, and 6 months later. Patients randomised to the 4 week group were also assessed at the 7 week time point. Outcome measures were the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Self Reported, and the Breathing Problems Questionnaire.

Results: Forty one patients in each group completed the PR programme. Patients made significant within group improvements after supervised rehabilitation. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any other measure at the 7 week or 6 month time points, except that patients in the 4 week group attained higher ESWT times (mean difference 124 seconds (95% CI 17.00 to 232.16), p = 0.024) at the 7 week time point.

Conclusions: A shortened 4 week supervised PR programme is equivalent to a 7 week supervised PR programme at the comparable time points of 7 weeks and 6 months
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)767-771
Number of pages4
JournalThorax
Volume6
Issue number1
Early online date25 Aug 2006
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2006

Fingerprint

Outpatients
Rehabilitation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Lung
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Forced Expiratory Volume
Respiration
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Walk Test

Cite this

How long should Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation be? A randomised controlled trial of four-weeks versus seven-weeks. / Sewell, Louise; Singh, Sally; Williams, JE; Morgan, MDL.

In: Thorax, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.09.2006, p. 767-771.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{36f2eec24b7b4ba8b4b8c9f80e764ae7,
title = "How long should Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation be?: A randomised controlled trial of four-weeks versus seven-weeks",
abstract = "Background: The evidence of benefit for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes is established. However, the optimal duration of a PR programme is not known. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to assess whether a 4 week PR programme was equivalent to our conventional 7 week PR programme at equivalent time points of 7 weeks and 6 months.Methods: One hundred patients (56 men) with stable COPD of mean (SD) age 70 (8) years and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 1.13 (0.50) litres were randomised to either a 7 week (n = 50) or 4 week (n = 50) supervised PR programme. Patients were assessed at baseline, at completion of the supervised PR programme, and 6 months later. Patients randomised to the 4 week group were also assessed at the 7 week time point. Outcome measures were the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Self Reported, and the Breathing Problems Questionnaire.Results: Forty one patients in each group completed the PR programme. Patients made significant within group improvements after supervised rehabilitation. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any other measure at the 7 week or 6 month time points, except that patients in the 4 week group attained higher ESWT times (mean difference 124 seconds (95{\%} CI 17.00 to 232.16), p = 0.024) at the 7 week time point.Conclusions: A shortened 4 week supervised PR programme is equivalent to a 7 week supervised PR programme at the comparable time points of 7 weeks and 6 months",
author = "Louise Sewell and Sally Singh and JE Williams and MDL Morgan",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/thx.2005.048173",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "767--771",
journal = "Thorax",
issn = "0040-6376",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How long should Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation be?

T2 - A randomised controlled trial of four-weeks versus seven-weeks

AU - Sewell, Louise

AU - Singh, Sally

AU - Williams, JE

AU - Morgan, MDL

PY - 2006/9/1

Y1 - 2006/9/1

N2 - Background: The evidence of benefit for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes is established. However, the optimal duration of a PR programme is not known. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to assess whether a 4 week PR programme was equivalent to our conventional 7 week PR programme at equivalent time points of 7 weeks and 6 months.Methods: One hundred patients (56 men) with stable COPD of mean (SD) age 70 (8) years and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 1.13 (0.50) litres were randomised to either a 7 week (n = 50) or 4 week (n = 50) supervised PR programme. Patients were assessed at baseline, at completion of the supervised PR programme, and 6 months later. Patients randomised to the 4 week group were also assessed at the 7 week time point. Outcome measures were the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Self Reported, and the Breathing Problems Questionnaire.Results: Forty one patients in each group completed the PR programme. Patients made significant within group improvements after supervised rehabilitation. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any other measure at the 7 week or 6 month time points, except that patients in the 4 week group attained higher ESWT times (mean difference 124 seconds (95% CI 17.00 to 232.16), p = 0.024) at the 7 week time point.Conclusions: A shortened 4 week supervised PR programme is equivalent to a 7 week supervised PR programme at the comparable time points of 7 weeks and 6 months

AB - Background: The evidence of benefit for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes is established. However, the optimal duration of a PR programme is not known. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to assess whether a 4 week PR programme was equivalent to our conventional 7 week PR programme at equivalent time points of 7 weeks and 6 months.Methods: One hundred patients (56 men) with stable COPD of mean (SD) age 70 (8) years and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 1.13 (0.50) litres were randomised to either a 7 week (n = 50) or 4 week (n = 50) supervised PR programme. Patients were assessed at baseline, at completion of the supervised PR programme, and 6 months later. Patients randomised to the 4 week group were also assessed at the 7 week time point. Outcome measures were the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (ESWT), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Self Reported, and the Breathing Problems Questionnaire.Results: Forty one patients in each group completed the PR programme. Patients made significant within group improvements after supervised rehabilitation. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any other measure at the 7 week or 6 month time points, except that patients in the 4 week group attained higher ESWT times (mean difference 124 seconds (95% CI 17.00 to 232.16), p = 0.024) at the 7 week time point.Conclusions: A shortened 4 week supervised PR programme is equivalent to a 7 week supervised PR programme at the comparable time points of 7 weeks and 6 months

U2 - 10.1136/thx.2005.048173

DO - 10.1136/thx.2005.048173

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 767

EP - 771

JO - Thorax

JF - Thorax

SN - 0040-6376

IS - 1

ER -