4.3 Article

Walk2Bactive: A randomised controlled trial of a physical activity-focused behavioural intervention beyond pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

期刊

CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 57-66

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1479972315619574

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; daily activity; exercise; monitoring; pedometer social cognitive theory

资金

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology [SFRH/BD/81328/2011]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/81328/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a physical activity (PA)-focused behavioural intervention during and after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on PA levels (primary aim), health-related outcomes and self-efficacy (secondary aims) of patients with COPD. Thirty-two patients were randomly assigned to an experimental group (EG) or control group (CG). The EG received a PA-focused behavioural intervention during PR (3 months) and follow-up support (3 months). The CG received PR (3 months). Daily PA was collected: number of steps; time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), total PA and sedentary activities (SA). Secondary outcomes comprised exercise capacity, muscle strength, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and self-efficacy. Measures were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Compared with the CG, the EG improved the number of steps (p = 0.006) and time spent in MVPA (p = 0.007), total PA (p = 0.014) and SA (p = 0.018) at 3 months. Differences were maintained after follow-up support (0.025 p 0.040), except for SA (p = 0.781). Exercise capacity, muscle strength and HRQOL were increased at 3 and 6 months (p 0.002) with no between-group differences (0.148 p 0.987). No changes were observed in self-efficacy (p = 0.899). A PA-focused behavioural intervention during and after PR may improve patients' PA levels. Further research is warranted to assess the sustainability of the findings.

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

4.3
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