View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial.
Authors: Griffiths TL (AUTHOR), Burr ML (AUTHOR), Campbell IA (AUTHOR), Lewis-Jenkins V (AUTHOR), Mullins J (AUTHOR), Shiels K (AUTHOR), Turner-Lawlor PJ (AUTHOR), Payne N (AUTHOR), Newcombe RG (AUTHOR), Lonescu AA (AUTHOR), Thomas J (AUTHOR), Tunbridge J (AUTHOR), Griffiths, T L (AUTHOR), Burr, M L (AUTHOR), Campbell, I A (AUTHOR), Lewis-Jenkins, V (AUTHOR), Mullins, J (AUTHOR), Shiels, K (AUTHOR), Turner-Lawlor, P J (AUTHOR), Payne, N (AUTHOR)
Source: Lancet. 1/29/2000, Vol. 355 Issue 9201, p362-368. 7p.
Abstract: Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be an effective intervention in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to assess the effect of outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation on use of health care and patients' wellbeing over 1 year.Methods: 200 patients with disabling chronic lung disease (the majority with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were randomly assigned a 6-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme (18 visits) or standard medical management. Use of health services was assessed from hospital and general-practice records. Analysis was by intention to treat.Findings: There was no difference between the rehabilitation (n=99) and control (n=101) groups in the number of patients admitted to hospital (40 vs 41) but the number of days these patients spent in hospital differed significantly (mean 10.4 [SD 9.7] vs 21.0 [20.7], p=0.022). The rehabilitation group had more primary-care consultations at the general-practitioner's premises than did the control group (8.6 [6.8] vs 7.3 [8.3], p=0.033) but fewer primary-care home visits (1.5 [2.8] vs 2.8 [4.6], p=0.037). Compared with control, the rehabilitation group also showed greater improvements in walking ability and in general and disease-specific health status.Interpretation: For patients chronically disabled by obstructive pulmonary disease, an intensive, multidisciplinary, outpatient programme of rehabilitation is an effective intervention, in the short term and the long term, that decreases use of health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Lancet is the property of Lancet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:<bold>Background: </bold>Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be an effective intervention in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We undertook a randomised controlled trial to assess the effect of outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation on use of health care and patients' wellbeing over 1 year.<bold>Methods: </bold>200 patients with disabling chronic lung disease (the majority with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were randomly assigned a 6-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme (18 visits) or standard medical management. Use of health services was assessed from hospital and general-practice records. Analysis was by intention to treat.<bold>Findings: </bold>There was no difference between the rehabilitation (n=99) and control (n=101) groups in the number of patients admitted to hospital (40 vs 41) but the number of days these patients spent in hospital differed significantly (mean 10.4 [SD 9.7] vs 21.0 [20.7], p=0.022). The rehabilitation group had more primary-care consultations at the general-practitioner's premises than did the control group (8.6 [6.8] vs 7.3 [8.3], p=0.033) but fewer primary-care home visits (1.5 [2.8] vs 2.8 [4.6], p=0.037). Compared with control, the rehabilitation group also showed greater improvements in walking ability and in general and disease-specific health status.<bold>Interpretation: </bold>For patients chronically disabled by obstructive pulmonary disease, an intensive, multidisciplinary, outpatient programme of rehabilitation is an effective intervention, in the short term and the long term, that decreases use of health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01406736
DOI:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)07042-7