4.6 Article

Improving Understanding of and Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with COPD: A Qualitative Inquiry of Patient and Health Professional Perspectives

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110835

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement: Bridging Excellence in Respiratory Disease and Gender Studies (ICEBERGS) of BC - Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Although patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) who adhere to a pulmonary rehabilitation program are better able to manage their illness and experience a better health-related quality of life, pulmonary rehabilitation remains underused. This study aims to describe the experiences of patients who are in a pulmonary rehabilitation program, and explore the perceptions of both patients and health professionals about what improves effective pulmonary rehabilitation. Methods: A qualitative research design, including focus groups and individual interviews with 25 patients and 7 program health professionals, was used to obtain combined perspectives about the factors underpinning the COPD patient's reasons for participation in a rehabilitation program. Results: Three themes were derived from the descriptive content analysis: (1) building confidence, (2) a perception of immediate tangible results, and (3) being ready and having access to the program. Conclusions and Practical Implications: Qualitative findings from this study suggest that a patient's adherence to a COPD rehabilitation program can be improved by quickly building up the participant's confidence, promoting tangible results, and by timely recognizing and responding to the issues of readiness and access. Based on these findings, health care providers could develop strategies to better serve COPD patients who face multiple barriers to access and successfully complete a pulmonary rehabilitation program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available