Background and objective: The aim of the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Guidelines (Guidelines) is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the practice of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) specific to Australian and New Zealand healthcare contexts.

Background Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective intervention for the management of people with chronic respiratory diseases, but the uptake of and adherence to PR programs is low. There is potential for mobile health (mHealth) to provide an alternative modality for the delivery of PR, overcoming many of the barriers contributing to poor attendance to current services. Objective The objective of this study was to understand the needs, preferences, and priorities of end users for the development of an adaptive mobile PR (mPR) support program. Methods A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach was used to assess the needs, preferences, and priorities of the end users (ie, patients with chronic respiratory disorders) and key stakeholders (ie, clinicians working with patients with chronic respiratory disorders and running PR). The formative studies included the following: (1) a survey to understand the preferences and priorities of patients for PR and how mobile technology could be used to provide PR support, (2) ethnographic semistructured interviews with patients with chronic respiratory disorders to gain perspectives on their understanding of their health and potential features that could be included in an mPR program, and (3) key informant interviews with health care providers to understand the needs, preferences, and priorities for the development of an mPR support program. Results Across all formative studies (patient survey, n=30; patient interviews, n=8; and key stakeholder interviews, n=8), the participants were positive about the idea of an mPR program but raised concerns related to digital literacy and confidence in using technology, access to technology, and loss of social support currently gained from traditional programs. Key stakeholders highlighted the need for patient safety to be maintained and ensuring appropriate programs for different groups within the population. Finding a balance between ensuring safety and maximizing access was seen to be essential in the success of an mPR program. Conclusions These formative studies found high interest in mHealth-based PR intervention and detailed the potential for an mPR program to overcome current barriers to accessing traditional PR programs. Key considerations and features were identified, including the importance of technology access and digital literacy being considered in utilizing technology with this population.

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been proven effective but is not well accessed due to transport, time, cost, and physical limitations of patients. We have developed a mobile phone-based PR program (mPR) that could be offered as an alternative for those unable to attend in-person. This was developed following formative research with patients, their families and clinicians. mPR has a core text message program plus an app that includes an action plan, exercise videos, lung visualization, symptom score questionnaire and 1-min sit-to-stand test.Aims: To determine the feasibility of delivering pulmonary rehabilitation by mobile phone.Methods: A 9-week non-randomized (1-arm) pilot study was conducted. Participants were 26 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease plus four family members, who were offered participation at first assessment or during group PR sessions. Outcomes included satisfaction, engagement with the program, and perceived impacts.Results: Eight people (31%) opted for text messages only, and 18 (69%) chose text messages plus the app. Three people stopped the program early, 20 said they would recommend it to others, 19 said it helped them to feel more supported, 17 said it helped them to change their behavior.Conclusion: It is feasible to deliver PR support via mobile phone, including exercise prescription and support. Our mPR program was appreciated by a small number of people with chronic respiratory disorders and family members. Suggestions for improvements are being used to inform the further development of the program, which will then be tested for effectiveness. Registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000884101 (www.anzctr.org.au).

No abstract

Purpose: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is vital in the management of chronic respiratory disorders (CRDs) although uptake, attendance and completion are poor. Differing models of delivering PR are emerging in an attempt to increase the uptake and completion of this intervention. This study aimed to evaluate participant rate of attendance and completion of PR when given a preference regarding model of delivery (centre-based and mPR). Secondary aims were to evaluate the factors affecting patient preference for model of delivery and determine whether mPR is non-inferior to centre-based PR in health outcomes. Methods: A multi-centre non-inferiority preference based clinical trial in Auckland, New Zealand. Participants with a CRD referred for PR were offered the choice of centre-based or mHealth PR (mPR). The primary outcome was completion rate of chosen intervention. Results: A total of 105 participants were recruited to the study with 67 (64%) preferring centre-based and 38 (36%) mPR. The odds of completing the PR programme were higher in the centre-based group compared to mPR (odds ratio 1.90 95% CI [0.83-4.35]). Participants opting for mPR were significantly younger (p = 0.002) and significantly more likely to be working (p = 0.0001). Results showed that mPR was not inferior to centre-based regarding changes in symptom scores (CAT) or time spent in sedentary behaviour (SBQ). When services were forced to transition to telehealth services during COVID-19 restrictions, the attendance and completion rates were higher with telephone calls and video conferencing compared to mPR -suggesting that synchronous interpersonal interactions with clinicians may facilitate the best attendance and completion rates. Conclusion: When offered the choice of PR delivery method, the majority of participants preferred centre-based PR and this facilitated the best completion rates. mPR was the preferred choice for younger, working participants suggesting that mPR may offer a viable alternative to centre-based PR for some participants, especially younger, employed participants.