ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2026
Is a Hybrid Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme Feasible and Effective in Individuals With COPD After an Exacerbation-Related Hospitalisation: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo combine qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the feasibility, participant satisfaction and effectiveness of a hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation programme following hospital discharge for an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
designConvergent parallel mixed method study nested in a larger ongoing prospective study; this report includes a subset of 21 participants who complete the qualitative and quantitative assessments between May 2023 and January 2024.
methodsSemi structured interviews using open-ended questions were conducted and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Participants were interviewed after completing an 8-week hybrid home-based rehabilitation programme, including four face-to-face and four remote sessions. Quantitative assessments-covering disease impact, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and exercise tolerance-were conducted at the beginning and end of the intervention in the same participants who took part in the interviews, and a 10-item satisfaction questionnaire was also completed after the programme. DATA SOURCES: May 2023 to January 2024. REPORTING
methodGRAMMS checklist was followed.
results21 people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11 females; mean age 62 ± 7 years; mean FEV
conclusionThe hybrid programme resulted in significant improvements in physical and psychological outcomes, and participants reported high levels of satisfaction. Qualitative findings highlighted the value of home-based delivery, supervision by a single care manager, informal carer involvement and emotional support in shaping feasibility and satisfaction. However, challenges related to remote sessions indicate that telerehabilitation may not be suitable for all patients and should not be used as a standalone PR option. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Given the strong preference of participants for face-to-face visits over remote visits, telerehabilitation should always include a minimum of individual or group face-to-face supervised sessions. The balance between supervision modalities should be personalised according to participants' needs and progress.
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.