BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by a persistent blockage of airflow, prompting episodes of shortness of breath, commonly leading to hospitalization. Hospitalization may lead to a decline in physical activity following discharge. Physical activity has been shown to improve symptoms of COPD and reduce readmissions, and to decrease morbidity and mortality. This study aims to explore, from the perspectives of people with COPD, the barriers to and enablers of participation in physical activity following hospitalization for COPD.MethodsThis study had a qualitative descriptive design and included semistructured interviews with 28 adult COPD patients who had been admitted to hospital with a primary diagnosis of exacerbation of COPD.ResultsA plethora of barriers to but fewer enablers of participation in physical activity and pulmonary rehabilitation were identified for this cohort of people. The main barriers identified were health-related (comorbidities, COPD symptoms, and physical injury or illness) environment-related (weather, transport, and finance), and self-related. The main enabling factors reported were access to health professionals and equipment, social support, routine and extracurricular activities, personal goals and motivation, and the effect of physical activity and “feeling better”.ConclusionThis research provides a snapshot of the barriers to and enablers of physical activity and pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD. It is evident that there are significant barriers which hinder the ability of people with COPD to undertake and continue participation in physical activity and pulmonary rehabilitation. While there are some enablers that may counter these barriers, it is clear that health professionals dealing with people suffering from COPD need to actively recognize and address barriers to physical activity and pulmonary rehabilitation. Hospital admission may create an opportunity for implementation of interventions promoting physical activity (such as referral to pulmonary rehabilitation), which may assist in reducing hospital readmission, as well as decreasing morbidity and mortality.

The findings from this review may assist health professionals, patients, care givers and the wider community to develop effective strategies to promote participation in PA and PR among people with COPD.

BackgroundEvaluating the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines is essential before deciding which ones which could best inform policy or practice. One current method of evaluating clinical guideline quality is the research-focused AGREE II instrument. This uses 23 questions scored 1–7, arranged in six domains, which requires at least two independent testers, and uses a formulaic weighted domain scoring system. Following feedback from time-poor clinicians, policy-makers and managers that this instrument did not suit clinical need, we developed and tested a simpler, shorter, binary scored instrument (the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist) designed for single users.MethodsContent and construct validity, inter-tester reliability and clinical utility were tested by comparing the new iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist with the AGREE II instrument. Firstly the questions and domains in both instruments were compared. Six randomly-selected guidelines on a similar theme were then assessed by three independent testers with different experience in guideline quality assessment, using both instruments. Per guideline, weighted domain and total AGREE II scores were calculated, using the scoring rubric for three testers. Total iCAHE scores were calculated per guideline, per tester. The linear relationship between iCAHE and AGREE II scores was assessed using Pearson r correlation coefficients. Score differences between testers were assessed for the iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist.ResultsThere were congruent questions in each instrument in four domains (Scope & Purpose, Stakeholder involvement, Underlying evidence/Rigour, Clarity). The iCAHE and AGREE II scores were moderate to strongly correlated for the six guidelines. There was generally good agreement between testers for iCAHE scores, irrespective of their experience. The iCAHE instrument was preferred by all testers, and took significantly less time to administer than the AGREE II instrument. However, the use of only three testers and six guidelines compromised study power, rendering this research as pilot investigations of the psychometric properties of the iCAHE instrument.ConclusionThe iCAHE Guideline Quality Checklist has promising psychometric properties and clinical utility.

BackgroundExcellence in Research for Australia (ERA) rankings are given to academic journals in which Australian academics publish. This provides a metric on which Australian institutions and disciplines are ranked for international competitiveness. This paper explores the issues surrounding the ERA rankings of allied health journals in Australia.MethodsWe conducted a broad search to establish a representative list of general allied health and discipline-specific journals for common allied health disciplines. We identified the ERA rankings and impact factors for each journal and tested the congruence between these metrics within the disciplines.ResultsFew allied health journals have high ERA rankings (A*/A), and there is variability in the impact factors assigned to journals within the same ERA rank. There is a small group of allied health researchers worldwide, and this group is even smaller when divided by discipline. Current publication metrics may not adequately assess the impact of research, which is largely aimed at clinicians to improve clinical practice. Moreover, many journals are produced by underfunded professional associations, and readership is often constrained by small numbers of clinicians in specific allied health disciplines who are association members.ConclusionAllied health must have a stronger united voice in the next round of ERA rankings. The clinical impact of allied health journals also needs to be better understood and promoted as a research metric.