4.7 Review

Clinical Impacts of Interventions for Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior on Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041631

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; physical activity; sedentary behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, there has been increasing attention on physical activity in patients with COPD, as it is a strong predictor of mortality. Sedentary behavior, such as sitting or lying down, also has a clinical impact on COPD patients. This review examines the clinical data on physical activity and sedentary behavior, including their definition, associated factors, beneficial effects, and biological mechanisms in both COPD and overall human health. It also explores interventions to improve physical activity or sedentary behavior in COPD patients.
Recently, physical activity has increasingly become the focus in patients with chronic obstructive airway disease (COPD) because it is a strong predictor of COPD-related mortality. In addition, sedentary behavior, which is included as a category of physical inactivity including such behaviors as sitting or lying down, has an independent clinical impact on COPD patients. The present review examines clinical data related to physical activity, focusing on the definition, associated factors, beneficial effects, and biological mechanisms in patients with COPD and with respect to human health regardless of COPD. The data related to how sedentary behavior is associated with human health and COPD outcomes are also examined. Lastly, possible interventions to improve physical activity or sedentary behavior, such as bronchodilators and pulmonary rehabilitation with behavior modification, to ameliorate the pathophysiology of COPD patients are described. A better understanding of the clinical impact of physical activity or sedentary behavior may lead to the planning of a future intervention study to establish high-level evidence.

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

4.7
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