4.6 Article

Exploration of physical activity knowledge, preferences and support needs among pulmonary hypertension patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277696

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated PH patients' knowledge of PA, recalled advice, exercise preferences and PA support needs. The results showed that patients lacked knowledge about PA and desired guidance from clinicians. Home-based exercise was preferred, and monitoring and external accountability were deemed important for sustained engagement.
ObjectivePhysical activity (PA) is an established adjunct therapy for pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients to mitigate PH symptoms and improve quality of life. However, PA engagement within this population remains low. This study investigated PH patients' knowledge of PA, recalled advice, exercise preferences and PA support needs. MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 adults (mean age 50 years; SD +/- 12 years) diagnosed with PH, living in Ireland. Interview scripts were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. ResultsFour key themes were identified: Lack of PA knowledge; exercise setting preference; accountability and monitoring; and clinician delivered PA information and guidance. ConclusionThis study found that PH clinicians provide suboptimal PA advice, yet patients desired clinician-delivered PA guidance. Home-based exercise was preferred with monitoring and external accountability deemed as important to facilitate sustained engagement. Practice implicationsPH clinicians are well positioned to play a critical role in assisting and empowering PH patients to engage in PA. Providing training and education to PH clinicians regarding exercise prescription may be beneficial. Further research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of home-based exercise interventions to improve quality of life and physical activity in PH.

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

4.6
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