4.5 Article

Comparison of daily physical activity between COPD patients from Central Europe and South America

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 421-426

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.09.019

关键词

Activities of daily living; Activity monitoring; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Population comparison

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil)
  2. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for COPD, Vienna, Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In healthy elderly and adults, tower physical activity level in daily life has been associated with tower socio-economic level and non-Caucasian race. The objective of this study was to determine if this is also applicable in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by comparing physical activity levels in daily life in stable patients from two countries (Austria and Brazil) with different socio-economic and ethnic characteristics. Methods: Physical activity in daily life was objectively assessed in 40 Austrian and 40 Brazilian COPD patients. Groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index, disease severity, smoking history, presence of concomitant heart disease, lung function, dyspnea and functional exercise capacity. In addition, climatic conditions were similar during the period of data collection in the two groups. Results: In comparison to Brazilian patients, Austrian patients had a significantly lower walking time (p = 0.04), higher sitting time (p = 0.02) and lower movement intensity (p = 0.0001). The proportion of patients who did not reach an average of 30 min of walking per day was 48% in the Austrian group and 23% in the Brazilian group. Conclusions: Austrian patients with COPD showed a significantly lower daily physical activity level in comparison to matched Brazilian patients. Socio-economic and ethnic factors appear to influence stable COPD patients differently than described in previous studies including healthy subjects. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据