Activity levels after pulmonary rehabilitation – what really happens?

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the changes in physical activity in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease over 6months after pulmonary rehabilitation.

Design

Prospective, observational study. Activity was measured over 2-day periods at the end of rehabilitation, and repeated every 6weeks for 6months using the ActivPAL uni-axial accelerometer. These results were compared with the shuttle walking test (SWT) and the St. George's Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (SGRDQ).

Setting

UK community hospital.

Participants

Adults completing a community rehabilitation programme.

Main outcome measure

Time spent standing and mobilising (‘uptime’).

Results

Of 34 subjects recruited, 28 completed the 6-month study period (mean age 69years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1second 1.3l). Participants wore the monitor for 13.8 to 14.2hours/day. At baseline (post-rehabilitation), participants spent 1.7 [standard deviation (SD) 1.3]hours/day walking and 3.5 (SD 2.6)hours/day standing. Taking the group as a whole, mean uptime decreased marginally by 13.6minutes after 24weeks compared with baseline, with significant individual variability. In all but one subject who showed decreased activity, this was apparent after 6weeks. There were no significant changes in the mean SWT or SGRDQ. Significant associations between total uptime and the SWT were found, but coefficients were weak. It was not possible to predict individual responses from baseline data.

Conclusion

The accelerometer provides useful supplementary data in patients completing rehabilitation programmes, and the results reveal wide variation. The weak associations between activity data and the SWT suggest that monitors provide additional information. More work is required to determine the factors associated with early deterioration in activity in order to design appropriate interventions.

Citation

Activity levels after pulmonary rehabilitation – what really happens? Physiotherapy - September 2013 (Vol. 99, Issue 3, Pages 228-232, DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2012.01.004)