4.4 Article

Uptake of and adherence to exercise during hospital haemodialysis

期刊

PHYSIOTHERAPY
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 83-87

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2005.08.004

关键词

exercise; rehabilitation; hospital haemodialysis; chronic kidney disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine the uptake of and adherence to exercise during hospital haemodialysis. Design Eight-week intradialytic cycling programme, supervised by 11 physiotherapist. Participants Forty-nine patients who were being treated by hospital haemodialysis in Dumfries at the start of July 2003. Main outcome measure The percentage of patients who were still exercising at the end of the 8-week programme. Results Three patients were ineligible: one died, one moved to another centre and one transferred to peritoneal dialysis. Eight (17%) patients were not interested in taking part in the study and 16 (35%) had medical problems that prevented them from taking part. Twenty-two of the remaining 46 (48%) patients began the programme. Those who exercised were younger (58 versus 67 years) and had fewer comorbidities (1.3 versus 2.1) than patients who did not exercise. Seventeen patients (77% of those who started exercising and 38% of those eligible to exercise) were still cycling at the end of the 8-week period. Sixteen of the 22 patients felt that they had benefited from the programme, and all 22 patients said that the programme should continue. Conclusions Around 40% of haemodialysis patients may be suitable for and able to complete an 8-week intradialytic cycling programme. This is a higher rate of adherence to exercise than reported in the literature. Our experience of haemodialysis patients in south-west Scotland suggests that uptake and adherence may be maximised by the presence of a physiotherapist during each dialysis session, and by targeting patients for exercise during dialysis rather than in an outpatient setting. (c) 2005 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by 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

4.4
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