Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCox, Narelle S-
dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, Christine F-
dc.contributor.authorMahal, Ajay-
dc.contributor.authorAlison, Jennifer A-
dc.contributor.authorWootton, Richard-
dc.contributor.authorHill, Catherine J-
dc.contributor.authorZanaboni, Paolo-
dc.contributor.authorO'Halloran, Paul-
dc.contributor.authorBondarenko, Janet-
dc.contributor.authorMacdonald, Heather-
dc.contributor.authorBarker, Kathryn-
dc.contributor.authorCrute, Hayley-
dc.contributor.authorMellerick, Christie-
dc.contributor.authorWageck, Bruna-
dc.contributor.authorBoursinos, Helen-
dc.contributor.authorLahham, Aroub-
dc.contributor.authorNichols, Amanda-
dc.contributor.authorCzupryn, Pawel-
dc.contributor.authorCorbett, Monique-
dc.contributor.authorHandley, Emma-
dc.contributor.authorBurge, Angela T-
dc.contributor.authorHolland, Anne E-
dc.identifier.citationThorax 2022; 77(7): 643-651en
dc.description.abstractPulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. This study investigated whether home-based telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease. A multicentre randomised controlled trial with assessor blinding, powered for equivalence was undertaken. Individuals with a chronic respiratory disease referred to pulmonary rehabilitation at four participating sites (one rural) were eligible and randomised using concealed allocation to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation. Both programmes were two times per week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire Dyspnoea (CRQ-D) domain at end-rehabilitation, with a prespecified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Follow-up was at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, symptoms, self-efficacy and psychological well-being. 142 participants were randomised to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation with 96% and 97% included in the intention-to-treat analysis, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for any outcome at either time point. Both groups achieved meaningful improvement in dyspnoea and exercise capacity at end-rehabilitation. However, we were unable to confirm equivalence of telerehabilitation for the primary outcome ΔCRQ-D at end-rehabilitation (mean difference (MD) (95% CI) -1 point (-3 to 1)), and inferiority of telerehabilitation could not be excluded at either time point (12-month follow-up: MD -1 point (95% CI -4 to 1)). At end-rehabilitation, telerehabilitation demonstrated equivalence for 6-minute walk distance (MD -6 m, 95% CI -26 to 15) with possibly superiority of telerehabilitation at 12 months (MD 14 m, 95% CI -10 to 38). telerehabilitation may not be equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for all outcomes, but is safe and achieves clinically meaningful benefits. When centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation is not available, telerehabilitation may provide an alternative programme model. ACtelerehabilitationN12616000360415.en
dc.subjectpulmonary rehabilitationen
dc.titleTelerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.affiliationWest Wimmera Health Service, Nhill, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAllied Health Research and Education Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationWimmera Health Care Group, Horsham, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationPhysiotherapy, Western Health, Footscray, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationRespiratory Research@Alfred, Department of Immunology and Pathology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationNorwegian Centre for eHealth Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norwayen
dc.identifier.affiliationClinical Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norwayen
dc.identifier.affiliationInstitute for Breathing and Sleepen
dc.identifier.affiliationPhysiotherapy, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationRespiratory and Sleep Medicineen
dc.identifier.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationNorwegian Centre for eHealth Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norwayen
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Aug 9, 2022

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.