↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation in home-based online groups: a mixed method pilot study in COPD

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation in home-based online groups: a mixed method pilot study in COPD
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1713-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatjana M. Burkow, Lars K. Vognild, Elin Johnsen, Marijke Jongsma Risberg, Astrid Bratvold, Elin Breivik, Trine Krogstad, Audhild Hjalmarsen

Abstract

Comprehensive multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation is vital in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is considered for any stage of the disease. Rehabilitation programmes are often centre-based and organised in groups. However, the distance from the patient's home to the centre and lack of transportation may hinder participation. Rehabilitation at home can improve access to care for patients regardless of disease severity. We had previously studied the technology usability and acceptability of a comprehensive home rehabilitation programme designed for patients with very severe COPD receiving long-term oxygen therapy. The acceptability of such comprehensive home programmes for those with less severe COPD, who may be less homebound, is not known. The aims of this feasibility study were to assess patient acceptability of the delivery mode and components of a comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation programme for any stage of COPD, as well as the technology usability, patient outcomes and economic aspects. Ten participants with COPD in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grade I-IV were enrolled in a 9-week home programme and divided into two rehabilitation groups, with five patients in each group. The programme included exercise training and self-management education in online groups of patients, and individual online consultations. The patients also kept a digital health diary. To assess the acceptability of the programme, the patients were interviewed after the intervention using a semi-structured interview guide. In addition the number of sessions attended was observed. The usability of the technology was assessed using interviews and the System Usability Scale questionnaire. The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) was used to measure health-related quality of life. The mode of delivery and the components of the programme were well accepted by the patients. The programme provided an environment for learning from both healthcare professionals and peers, for asking questions and discussing disease-related issues and for group exercising. The patients considered that it facilitated health-enhancing behaviours and social interactions with a social group formed among the participants. Even participants who were potentially less homebound appreciated the home group and social aspects of the programme. The participants found the technology easy to learn and use. The acceptability and usability results were consistent with those in our previous study of patients with very severe COPD. Only the mean change in the SGRQ total score of -6.53 (CI 95 % -0.38 to -12.68, p = 0.04) indicates a probable clinically significant effect. Economic calculations indicated that the cost of the programme was feasible. The results of this study indicate that comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation delivered in home-based online groups may be feasible in COPD. The mode of delivery and components of the programme appeared to be acceptable across patients with different disease severity. The results in terms of patient outcomes are inconclusive, and further assessment is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 209 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 53 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 44 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 19%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Psychology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 63 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,101,117
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,589
of 4,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,441
of 388,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#50
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.