Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Brief-BESTest in People with COPD after Pulmonary Rehabilitation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cátia Paixão ◽  
Patrícia Rebelo ◽  
Ana Oliveira ◽  
Cristina Jácome ◽  
Joana Cruz ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective The Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) is a comprehensive, reliable, and valid balance test that provides valuable information to guide balance training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Its clinical interpretability is, however, currently limited, as cutoff points to identify clinically relevant changes in people with COPD after pulmonary rehabilitation are still lacking. This study aimed to establish the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Brief-BESTest in people with COPD after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Methods A secondary analysis of data from 2 previous studies was conducted. The modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT), and the Brief-BESTest (0–24 points) were collected in people with COPD pre/post a 12-week PR program including balance training. The MCID was computed using anchor- and distribution-based methods. Changes in the 6-MWT and the mMRC were assessed and used as anchors. The pooled MCID was computed using the arithmetic weighted mean (2/3 anchor- and 1/3 distribution-based methods). Results Seventy-one people with COPD [69 years (SD = 8); 76% male; FEV1 = 49.8%predicted (SD = 18%)] were included. There was a significant improvement in the Brief-BESTest after PR [mean difference = 3 points (SD = 3)]. Significant correlations were found between the Brief-BESTest and the mMRC (r = −.31) and the 6-MWT (r = .37). The pooled MCID was 3.3 points. Conclusion An improvement of at least 3 points in the Brief-BESTest in people with COPD will enhance the interpretability of PR effects on balance performance of this population and guide tailored interventions. Impact The Brief-BESTest outcome measure is comprehensive, easily administered, and simple to interpret in clinical practice. This study represents a significant contribution toward the clinical interpretation of changes in balance in people with COPD following PR.

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 147997312093329
Author(s):  
Stephanie C Wynne ◽  
Suhani Patel ◽  
Ruth E Barker ◽  
Sarah E Jones ◽  
Jessica A Walsh ◽  
...  

The aims of the study were to evaluate the responsiveness of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) subscale and HADS-Depression (HADS-D) subscale to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with bronchiectasis compared to a matched group of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provide estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of HADS-A and HADS-D in bronchiectasis. Patients with bronchiectasis and at least mild anxiety or depression (HADS-A ≥ 8 or/and HADS-D ≥ 8), as well as a propensity score-matched control group of patients with COPD, underwent an 8-week outpatient PR programme (two supervised sessions per week). Within- and between-group changes were calculated in response to PR. Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID. HADS-A and HADS-D improved in response to PR in both patients with bronchiectasis and those with COPD (median (25th, 75th centile)/mean (95% confidence interval) change: HADS-A change: bronchiectasis −2 (−5, 0), COPD −2 (−4, 0); p = 0.43 and HADS-D change: bronchiectasis −2 (−2 to −1), COPD −2 (−3 to −2); p = 0.16). Using 26 estimates, the MCID for HADS-A and HADS-D was −2 points. HADS-A and HADS-D are responsive to PR in patients with bronchiectasis and symptoms of mood disorder, with an MCID estimate of −2 points.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Horton ◽  
Justina Ruksenaite ◽  
Katy Mitchell ◽  
Louise Sewell ◽  
Christopher Newby ◽  
...  

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a highly effective intervention for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Physical activity (PA) has been shown to increase after a centre-based programme, yet it is not clear if a home-based programme can offer the same benefit. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of home-based PR compared with the centre-based PR on the PA levels post 7 weeks of PR and 6 months follow-up.Method: In this study, 51 participants with COPD, of them, 36 (71%) men completed physical activity monitoring with a SenseWear Armband, at three time points (baseline, 7 weeks, and 6 months). The participants were randomly assigned to either centre-based supervised PR (n = 25; 69 ± 6 years; FEV1 55 ± 20% predicted) or home-based PR (n = 26; 68 ± 7 years; FEV1 42 ± 19% predicted) programmes lasting 7 weeks. The home-based programme includes one hospital visit, a self-management manual, and two telephone calls. The PA was measured as step count, time in moderate PA (3–6 metabolic equivalent of tasks [METs]) in bouts of more than 10 min and sedentary time (<2 METs).Results: Home-based PR increased step count significantly more than the centre-based PR after 7 weeks (mean difference 1,463 steps: 95% CI 280–2,645, p = 0.02). There was no difference in time spent in moderate PA was observed (mean difference 62 min: 95% CI −56 to 248, p = 0.24). Sedentary behaviour was also significantly different between the centre and home-based groups. The home group spent 52 min less time sedentary compared with the centre-based (CI −106 to 2, p = 0.039). However, after 6 months, the step count and time spent in moderate PA returned to baseline in both the groups.Conclusion: This study provides an important insight into the role of home-based PR which has the potential to be offered as an alternative to the centre-based PR. Understanding who may best respond from the centre or home-based PR warrants further exploration and how to maintain these initial benefits for the long-term.Trial Registry: ISRCTN: No.: ISRCTN81189044; URL: isrctn.com.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document