Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive respiratory disease with an increasing prevalence worldwide. Its potential consequences, including reduced function and reduced social participation, are likely to be associated with decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, illness perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs may also play a part in determining HRQoL in persons with COPD. The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between illness perceptions, self-efficacy, and HRQoL in a sample of persons with COPD in a longitudinal perspective. The context of the study was a patient education course from which the participants were recruited. Data concerning sociodemographic variables, social support, physical activity, illness perceptions, general self-efficacy, and HRQoL were collected before the course started and 1 year after completion. Linear regression was used in the analyses. The results showed that less consequences and less symptoms (identity) were associated with higher physical HRQoL (PCS) at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Less emotional response was similarly associated with higher mental HRQoL (MCS) at both time points. Lower self-efficacy showed a borderline significant association with higher PCS at baseline, but was unrelated to MCS at both time points. Self-efficacy showed no influence on the associations between illness perceptions and HRQoL. In conclusion, the study showed that specific illness perceptions had a stable ability to predict HRQoL in persons with COPD, whereas self-efficacy did not. The associations between illness perceptions and HRQoL were not mediated by self-efficacy.

Study Design. A prospective observational study with translation and psychometric analyses of a questionnaire. Objective. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 into Norwegian. Summary of Background Data. The different versions of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) have been important and influential tools for pain assessment. To more reliably assess qualities of both neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain, the Short-Form MPQ was revised in 2009 (SF-MPQ-2), including seven additional descriptors. No Norwegian adaptation of the SF-MPQ-2 has been performed. Methods. A translation of the SF-MPQ-2 was performed based on established guidelines. Forward-translations were compared and discussed in an expert workgroup. A synthesis was achieved by consensus. A backward translation was reviewed and consolidated with the forward translations to confirm linguistic equivalence. A prefinal version was tested in eight patients, who were interviewed to evaluate acceptability and comprehension of the questionnaire. Minor changes were implemented. The questionnaire was externally proofread. The final Norwegian version (NSF-MPQ-2) was tested for content and construct validity and internal consistency reliability in a population with low back-related leg pain. Results. The backward translation was in good accordance with the original version. The prefinal version showed excellent acceptability and comprehension in initial patient-testing. The NSF-MPQ-2 showed satisfactory content and construct validity, including responsiveness to change, and acceptable internal consistency reliability as measured by Cronbach's alpha. A confirmatory factor analysis showed poor fit for the established four-factor structure, especially regarding the neuropathic subscale. Conclusion. The NSF-MPQ-2 showed excellent acceptability and comprehension, satisfactory content and construct validity, including responsiveness to change, and internal consistency reliability as measured by Cronbach's alpha. However, a confirmatory factor analysis raised concerns regarding the factor-structure in the present population. Until more evidence emerges for the four-factor solution we suggest the NSF-MPQ-2 should be used as a single measure. Level of Evidence: 3

Background Recently, a large group of patients with persistent dyspnea, poor physical capacity, and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following pulmonary embolism (PE) has been identified and clustered under the name “post pulmonary embolism syndrome” (PPS). These patients seem good candidates for pulmonary rehabilitation. The aim of the study is to explore whether a pulmonary rehabilitation program can improve physical capacity, dyspnea, and HRQoL in PPS patients. Methods A two-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) is being performed at Østfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital in Norway. Patients with PPS are 1:1 randomized into an intervention or a control group. The intervention consists of a supervised, outpatient rehabilitation program twice weekly (1 h) for 8 weeks provided by experienced physiotherapists. The intervention involves individually adapted exercises based on existing pulmonary rehabilitation programs (relaxation, interval, and resistance training), and an educational session including topics such as normal anatomy and physiology of the respiratory and circulatory system, information on PE/PPS, breathing strategies, and benefits of exercise/physical activity. Patients randomized to the control group receive usual care without specific instructions to exercise. Participants in the intervention and control groups will be compared based on assessments conducted at baseline, 12 weeks, and 36 weeks after inclusion using the incremental shuttle walk test (primary outcome) and endurance shuttle walk test (exercise capacity), Sensewear activity monitor (daily physical activity), the modified Medical Research Council scale, the Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (dyspnea), and EQ-5D-5L and the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life Questionnaire (HRQoL). Recruitment of 190 patients is currently ongoing. Discussion Results from this study may provide a currently untreated group of PPS patients with an effective treatment resulting in reduced symptoms of dyspnea, improved exercise capacity, and better HRQoL following PE. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT03405480. Registered prospectively on September 2017. Protocol version 1 (from original protocol September 2017). The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 1).