IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i7-8p962-971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A three‐year follow‐up of a nurse‐led multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme in primary health care: a quasi‐experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Ann‐Britt Zakrisson
  • Ayako Hiyoshi
  • Kersti Theander

Abstract

Aims and objectives To investigate the effects of a nurse‐led multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme conducted in primary health care on functional capacity, quality of life and exacerbation frequency over three years among patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Background Although Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease is a chronic respiratory disease, it has been established that pulmonary rehabilitation has positive effects on patients' everyday functioning. However, the duration of these functional improvements, especially when the rehabilitation programmes are provided in primary health care settings, remains to be established. Design A quasi‐experimental design. Method Primary health care patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD stages II and III) were included; 49 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group. The intervention comprised a six‐week pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Functional capacity was assessed using a six‐minute walking test and quality of life by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at baseline, after one year and three years. Exacerbation frequency was calculated from one year before to three years after the programme. Results No significant differences between the groups were observed in the six‐minute walking‐test or the Clinical COPD Questionnaire after one year and three years. On average, there were significant improvements in the six‐minute walking‐test and the Clinical COPD Questionnaire from baseline to the one‐year follow‐up. Exacerbation frequency tended to decrease in the intervention group and increase in the control group (interaction test was p = 0·091) but increased again in both groups after three years. Conclusion There was no evidence of the benefit of the nurse‐led multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme, although the exacerbation frequency tended to decrease in the intervention group after one year. There is a need for support and coaching at regular follow‐ups in primary health care. Relevance to clinical practice There is a need to support and coach patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in primary health care by means of regular follow‐ups.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann‐Britt Zakrisson & Ayako Hiyoshi & Kersti Theander, 2016. "A three‐year follow‐up of a nurse‐led multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme in primary health care: a quasi‐experimental study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(7-8), pages 962-971, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:7-8:p:962-971
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13132
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13132?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alejandra Aranburu-Imatz & Juan de la Cruz López-Carrasco & Ana Moreno-Luque & José Manuel Jiménez-Pastor & María del Rocío Valverde-León & Francisco José Rodríguez-Cortés & Pedro Arévalo-Buitrago & P, 2022. "Nurse-Led Interventions in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-11, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:7-8:p:962-971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.