OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of rollator use on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS:Thirty-one postrehabilitation patients with COPD were randomized to receive a rollator (n = 18) or usual care (n = 13) for 8 weeks and to record the frequency of rollator use. Outcome measures at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks included the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the 6-min walk (6MW). RESULTS: During acute testing, subjects consistently walked further when assisted (baseline 6MW: 292 +/- 67 m vs 263 +/- 67 m; 8 weeks: 283 +/- 65 m vs 259 +/- 68 m [+/-SD]; p = 0.013). However, provision of a rollator at home was not associated with group differences in the CRQ (p > 0.08) or in the unassisted 6MW (p = 0.4) or the assisted 6MW (p = 0.5). Eight of 18 subjects assigned to the rollator group used the rollator less than three times per week. Regular users demonstrated a consistent improvement in mastery compared with infrequent users (4 weeks: 4.7 +/- 0.6 vs 5.2 +/- 0.8, respectively; 8 weeks: 5.3 +/- 0.8 vs 4.7 +/- 0.4; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of effectiveness during acute testing, this study did not demonstrate a rollator effect on quality of life or exercise capacity when the rollator was provided at home, for a longer period. Actual use of a rollator may be an important determinant of its effect. Therefore, when prescribing a rollator, health-care professionals should attempt to identify those most likely to use it.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of rollator use on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-one postrehabilitation patients with COPD were randomized to receive a rollator (n = 18) or usual care (n = 13) for 8 weeks and to record the frequency of rollator use. Outcome measures at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks included the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the 6-min walk (6MW). RESULTS: During acute testing, subjects consistently walked further when assisted (baseline 6MW: 292 +/- 67 m vs 263 +/- 67 m; 8 weeks: 283 +/- 65 m vs 259 +/- 68 m [+/-SD]; p = 0.013). However, provision of a rollator at home was not associated with group differences in the CRQ (p > 0.08) or in the unassisted 6MW (p = 0.4) or the assisted 6MW (p = 0.5). Eight of 18 subjects assigned to the rollator group used the rollator less than three times per week. Regular users demonstrated a consistent improvement in mastery compared with infrequent users (4 weeks: 4.7 +/- 0.6 vs 5.2 +/- 0.8, respectively; 8 weeks: 5.3 +/- 0.8 vs 4.7 +/- 0.4; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of effectiveness during acute testing, this study did not demonstrate a rollator effect on quality of life or exercise capacity when the rollator was provided at home, for a longer period. Actual use of a rollator may be an important determinant of its effect. Therefore, when prescribing a rollator, health-care professionals should attempt to identify those most likely to use it.
Authors: Darcy D Marciniuk; Donna Goodridge; Paul Hernandez; Graeme Rocker; Meyer Balter; Pat Bailey; Gord Ford; Jean Bourbeau; Denis E O'Donnell; Francois Maltais; Richard A Mularski; Andrew J Cave; Irvin Mayers; Vicki Kennedy; Thomas K Oliver; Candice Brown Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Kylie Hill; L W Cindy Ng; Nola Cecins; Vittoria R Formico; Vinicius Cavalheri; Sue C Jenkins Journal: Lung Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.584