ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2021
Integrating patients with chronic respiratory disease and heart failure into a combined breathlessness rehabilitation programme: a service redesign and pilot evaluation.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe successful integration of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) into a traditional pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme has previously been reported. Our aim was to reconfigure both our cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and PR services to enable us to deliver a symptom-based programme-breathlessness rehabilitation (BR), for patients with a primary symptom of breathlessness irrespective of the index diagnosis, or comorbid disease.
methodsAfter a service redesign process, patients attended a two times per week, group-based, tailored exercise and education programme for 6 weeks, delivered by CR and PR staff. The classes included both aerobic and resistance exercises and an overarching generic education programme alongside disease-specific components. Home programmes were reviewed at each session to facilitate progress and influence changes in exercise behaviour beyond the supervised programme. Generic clinical outcome measures were performed pre and post BR.Staff focus groups were conducted to identify barriers and facilitators and explore staff perceptions.
results272 patients (n=193 chronic respiratory disease (CRD) and n=79 CHF) were assessed and enrolled into BR (153 men, mean (SD) age 68.8 (12.7) years, body mass index 28.8 (7.3), Medical Research Council 3 (IQR 2-4), New York Heart Association 2 (IQR 2-3)). 164 patients completed the programme. Statistically significant improvements were seen in both exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walking test: mean change 47.4 m; endurance shuttle walking test: mean change 310.7 s) and quadriceps strength (quadriceps maximal voluntary contraction: mean change 3.7 kg) (p≤0.0001) alongside a statistically significant reduction in dyspnoea (chronic respiratory questionnaire/chronic heart questionnaire - self reported - dyspnoea: mean change 0.4) and anxiety and depression scores (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) - anxiety: -1.6; HADS - depression: -1.3) (p≤0.0001).Qualitative staff focus groups identified three subthemes: collaboration and integration, service quality and future challenges. DISCUSSION: Overall the service redesign indicates the feasibility for staff and individuals with CRD and CHF to integrate into a breathlessness programme. Early data suggests clinical effectiveness. Given the significance of comorbid disease it is an approach that warrants further consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.