Effect of Exercise Training in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Compared With Healthy Elderly Subjects

Technology developments and demand for flexibility in health care and in contact with the health care system are two factors leading to increased use of eHealth solutions. The use of eHealth has been shown to have positive effects in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but the full potential for this group needs to be explored. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the feasibility of an eHealth tool used for exercise training and online contacts for people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The 10-week intervention included an eHealth tool for exercise training in home environment and regular online contacts, as well as weekly e-rounds for health care professionals. Seven of the nine participants completed the study. The eHealth tool was found to be feasible for e-rounds, exercise training and online contacts. Participants could manage the tool and adhere to training; positive effects were shown, and no adverse events occurred. Technical functions need to be improved.

Download Full-text

Objective monitoring of adherence with home exercise training during pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Physiotherapy ◽

10.1016/j.physio.2005.08.006 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 92 (1) ◽

pp. 50-54 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

J. Hunter ◽

S.J. Singh ◽

M.D.L. Morgan

Keyword(s):

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Exercise Training ◽

Pulmonary Disease ◽

Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽

Home Exercise ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Objective Monitoring

Download Full-text

Oxygen therapy for exercise training or rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

10.1002/14651858.cd005372 ◽

2005 ◽

Author(s):

ML Nonoyama ◽

D Brooks ◽

Y Lacasse ◽

RS Goldstein ◽

GH Guyatt

Keyword(s):

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Exercise Training ◽

Pulmonary Disease ◽

Oxygen Therapy ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Download Full-text

Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032767 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. e032767

Author(s):

Koichi Nishimura ◽

Masaaki Kusunose ◽

Ryo Sanda ◽

Yousuke Tsuji ◽

Yoshinori Hasegawa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Pulmonary Disease ◽

Intraclass Correlation ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Elderly Subjects ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Care Hospital ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Wide Range ◽

Patient Reported

ObjectivesA wide range of electronic devices can be used for data collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comparisons between electronic and paper-based PRO measures have been undertaken in asthmatics, it is currently uncertain whether electronic questionnaires work equally as well as paper versions in elderly subjects with COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).DesignA randomised cross-over design was used to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the two tools. The interval between the two administrations was 1 week.SettingElectronic versions were self-administered under supervision using a tablet computer at our outpatient clinic (secondary care hospital in Japan) while paper questionnaires completed at home were requested to be returned by mail. It was intended that half of the patients completed the electronic versions of both questionnaires first, followed by the paper versions while the other half completed the paper versions ﬁrst.ParticipantsEighty-one subjects with stable COPD were included.ResultsThe E-RS total scores (possible range 0–40) were 6.8±7.4 and 5.0±6.6 in the paper-based and electronic versions, respectively, and the CAT scores (possible range 0–40) were 10.0±7.4 and 8.6±7.8. In both questionnaires, higher scores indicate worse status. The relationship between electronic and paper versions showed significant reliability for both the E-RS total score and CAT score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.82 and 0.89, respectively; both p<0.001). However, both the E-RS total and CAT scores were significantly higher in the paper versions (p<0.05).ConclusionsIn both cases, the two versions of the same questionnaire cannot be used interchangeably even though they have both been validated.

Download Full-text