The considerable growth in the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation since 2006 adds further support for its efficacy in a wide range of individuals with chronic respiratory disease.

No abstract

Background-The Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) is an established measure of health status for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It has been found to be reproducible and sensitive to change, but as an interviewer led questionnaire is very time consuming to administer. A study was undertaken to develop a self-reported version of the CRQ (CRQ-SR) and to compare the results of this questionnaire with the conventional interviewer led CRQ (CRQ-IL). Methods-Fifty two patients with moderate to severe COPD participated in the study. Subjects completed the CRQ-SR 1 week after completing the CRQ-IL, and a further CRQ-SR was administered 1 week later. For patients in group A (n=27) the dyspnoea provoking activities that they had previously selected were transcribed onto the second CRQ-SR, while patients in group B (n=25) were not informed of their previous dyspnoea provoking activities when they completed the second CRQ-SR. To assess the short term reproducibility and reliability of the CRQ-SR it was then administered twice at an interval of 7-10 days to a further group of 21 patients. The CRQ-IL was not administered. Longer term reproducibility was examined in 39 stable patients who completed the CRQ-SR at initial assessment and then again 7 weeks later. Results-Mean scores per dimension, mean diVerences, and limits of agreement are given for each dimension in the comparison of the two questionnaires. There were no statistically significant differences between the CRQ-IL and CRQ-SR in the mastery and fatigue dimensions (p>0.05). A statistically significant diVerence between the two scores was found in the dyspnoea dimension (p=0.006) and the emotional function dimension (p=0.04), but these diVerences were well within the minimum clinically important threshold. No statistically significant diVerence in the mean dyspnoea score was seen between groups A and B. The CRQ-SR was found to be reproducible both in the short term and after the longer period of 7 weeks, with no statistically or clinically significant diVerences in any dimension. Test-retest reliability was found to be high in each dimension, both in the short and longer term. Conclusions-The CRQ-SR is a reproducible, reliable, and stable measure of health status. It compares well with the CRQ-IL but cannot be used interchangeably. The main advantage of the CRQ-SR over the CRQ-IL is that is quick to administer, reducing assessment time and hence cost. (Thorax 2001;56:954-959)

BackgroundStandardised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes offer an alternative model to centre-based supervised PR for which uptake is currently poor. We determined if a structured home-based unsupervised PR programme was non-inferior to supervised centre-based PR for participants with COPD.MethodsA total of 287 participants with COPD who were referred to PR (187 male, mean (SD) age 68 (8.86) years, FEV1% predicted 48.34 (17.92)) were recruited. They were randomised to either centre-based PR or a structured unsupervised home-based PR programme including a hospital visit with a healthcare professional trained in motivational interviewing, a self-management manual and two telephone calls. Fifty-eight (20%) withdrew from the centre-based group and 51 (18%) from the home group. The primary outcome was dyspnoea domain in the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire Self-Report; CRQ-SR) at 7 weeks. Measures were taken blinded. We undertook a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) complete case analysis, comparing groups according to original random allocation and with complete data at follow-up. The non-inferiority margin was 0.5 units.ResultsThere was evidence of significant gains in CRQ-dyspnoea at 7 weeks in both home and centre-based groups. There was inconclusive evidence that home-based PR was non-inferior to PR in dyspnoea (mean group difference, mITT: −0.24, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.12, p=0.18), favouring the centre group at 7 weeks.ConclusionsThe standardised home-based programme provides benefits in dyspnoea. Further evidence is needed to definitively determine if the health benefits of the standardised home-based programme are non-inferior or equivalent to supervised centre-based rehabilitation.Trial registration numberISRCTN81189044.