ArticleChronic respiratory disease
The characteristics of people with COPD who enrol in home-based pulmonary rehabilitation versus centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation: A nationwide cross-sectional study.
Article in Chronic respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesHome-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is increasingly offered as an alternative to centre-based PR. This study explores differences in the characteristics of people with COPD enrolling in home-based versus centre-based PR in England and Wales and assesses whether availability of home-based PR is associated with increased enrolment.MethodsThis study used data from the UK 2023-24 National Respiratory Audit Programme PR audit. Eligible people had a primary condition of COPD, complete mental health and geographic data, and attended an initial assessment at a centre that completed the clinical and organisational audit. For the primary analysis only, people were further restricted to those enrolled on a purely home-based or centre-based programme at a centre that offered both options. Enrolment was defined as having attended an initial assessment and having at least one scheduled PR session with a defined start date. Differences in characteristics were assessed using Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The association between availability of home-based PR and enrolment was assessed using a mixed-effects logistic regression model.Results13719/29981 (45.8%) people were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis and 25039/29981 (83.5%) were eligible for the secondary analysis. Those who enrolled in a home-based programme were more likely to: be female (58.6% vs 48.2%; p<0.001); be more deprived (55.7% versus 46.6% in IMD quintiles 1 or 2, p<0.001); have a greater mental health burden (28.2% versus 22.2% with at least 1 cognitive impairment recorded, p<0.001); and classified their symptom burden as more severe at assessment (CAT score 23 versus 22, p <0.001). Home-based PR was unavailable for 9099/25039 (36.3%) people. Availability of home-based PR was not associated with reduced non-enrolment in PR when compared with centres that did not offer home-based PR (adj-OR for non-enrolment: 0.79; 95%CI:0.51-1.23)).ConclusionHealthcare providers and those developing home-based PR digital applications should consider tailoring their approach to those who are most likely to opt in, who tend to be younger, female, and have a higher burden of respiratory symptoms and mental health comorbidities.
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.