Matthew Armstrong1, Emily Hume2, Laura McNeillie3, Francesca Chambers4, Lynsey Wakenshaw5, Graham Burns6, Karen Heslop Marshall7, Ioannis Vogiatzis8. 1. Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, School of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. Electronic address: matthew.armstrong@northumbria.ac.uk. 2. Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, School of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. Electronic address: emily.c.hume@northumbria.ac.uk. 3. The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4LP, UK. Electronic address: laura.mcneillie@nhs.net. 4. The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4LP, UK. Electronic address: francesca.chambers2@nhs.net. 5. The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4LP, UK. Electronic address: l.wakenshaw@nhs.net. 6. The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4LP, UK. Electronic address: graham.burns2@nhs.net. 7. The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4LP, UK. Electronic address: karen.heslop3@nhs.net. 8. Department of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, School of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. Electronic address: Ioannis.vogiatzis@northumbria.ac.uk.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients' experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA. RESULTS: There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to -0.3] points, p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Clinical PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (C-PPAC) instrument, combines a questionnaire assessing the domains of amount and difficulty of physical activity (PA) with activity monitor data (steps/day and vector magnitude units) to assess patients' experiences of PA. The C-PPAC instrument is responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and to changes in clinically relevant variables. We compared the effect of PA behavioural modification interventions alongside pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to PR alone on the C-PPAC scores in COPD patients with low baseline PA levels. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 48 patients (means ± SD: FEV1: 50 ± 19%, baseline steps/day: 3450 ± 2342) were assigned 1:1 to receive PR alone, twice weekly for 8 weeks, or PA behavioural modification interventions (comprising motivational interviews, monitoring and feedback using a pedometer and goal setting) alongside PR (PR + PA). The C-PPAC instrument was used to assess PA experience, including a perspective of the amount and difficulty of PA. RESULTS: There were clinically important improvements in favour of the PR + PA interventions compared to PR alone in: 1) the C-PPAC total score (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [4 to 12] points, p = 0.001), the difficulty (mean [95% CI] difference: 8 [3 to 13] points, p = 0.002) and the amount (mean [95% CI] difference 8 [3 to 16] points, p = 0.005) domains and 2) the CAT score (mean [95% CI] difference: -2.1 [-3.8 to -0.3] points, p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: PA behavioural modification interventions alongside PR improve the experiences of PA in patients with advanced COPD and low baseline PA levels. (NCT03749655).
Authors: Thomas Gille; Pradeesh Sivapalan; Georgios Kaltsakas; Shailesh B Kolekar; Matthew Armstrong; Rachel Tuffnell; Rachael A Evans; Guido Vagheggini; Luiza Helena Degani-Costa; Cláudia Vicente; Nilakash Das; Vitalii Poberezhets; Camille Rolland-Debord; Sam Bayat; Ioannis Vogiatzis; Frits M E Franssen; Hilary Pinnock; Lowie E G W Vanfleteren Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2022-05-23