S22 Evaluation of a virtual pulmonary rehabilitation programme and comparison to traditional face-to-face programmes in COPD

Cox, Katherine; Krynicka, A.; Jenkins, Alex R; Jones, Aym

doi:10.1136/thorax-2021-btsabstracts.28

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 8 ] However, the results of another study showed that face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation program had a better effect on the physical activity of patients with COPD compared to virtual pulmonary rehabilitation. [ 27 ] The reason for this difference can be attributed to the physical presence in the treatment environment and encouraging the person to adhere to treatment by observing the patients in the same condition and also the absence of problems using the application. Chen and colleagues also found that the combination of virtual and face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation program was more effective in improving physical activity, quality of life, and shortness of breath than the face-to-face program alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, it has a better effect on the improvement of emotional and psychological problems. [ 27 ] However, one study showed that face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation intervention was not effective on the depression of elderly COVID-19 survivors. [ 15 ] Contradictory results with the present study can be caused by the different tools used to investigate depression, the different context of the study, and the different types of samples (elderly).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mobile Phone App-Based or Face-to-Face Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COVID-19 Survivors

Atashi,

Hashemi,

Haghighat

et al. 2023

Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is recommended as a standard, effective, and important treatment for COVID-19 survivors who remain symptomatic after the acute phase. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effect of mobile phone-based PR application with face-to-face PR on the quality of life, anxiety, depression, and daily life activities of COVID-19 survivors. Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental was conducted on 65 COVID-19 survivors during 2022. Convenient sampling was done based on the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (n = 31) received PR through a mobile phone application, and the control group (n = 34) received face-to-face PR. Data were collected before and after the intervention in both groups using a demographic information questionnaire, SF-12, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and Barthel scale. For all tests, a maximum error of 5% was considered. Results: The two studied groups had no statistically significant difference with respect to all the investigated variables at baseline (p > 0.05). After the intervention, the mean anxiety and depression score of the patients in the control group was significantly lower than the intervention group (t = −3.46, f = 63, p = 0.01). After our intervention, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean quality of life and daily life activity scores between the two groups (t = −0.68, f = 63, p > 0.05). Conclusions: The application of PR does not show a statistically significant difference in terms of improving the quality of life and daily activities compared with the face-to-face method; we suggest that the PR application be used as a cost-effective method when face-to-face PR is not possible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%