Patient Activation for Self-Management in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis or Sarcoidosis.

BACKGROUND: Self-management is considered important in the management of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or sarcoidosis. However, data about the degree of activation for self-management is lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine the degree of activation for self-management in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) and to evaluate the association between PAM scores, clinical characteristics, and health-related outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional prospective study assessed besides the PAM also demographics, lung function, dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council [mMRC]), fatigue (Checklist Individual Strength-Fatigue [CIS-Fatigue]), anxiety/depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS-A/HADS-D]), and generic health status (EuroQol five-dimensional-five-level [EQ-5D-5L]). RESULTS: Mean PAM was 55.0 (9.1) points in patients with IPF (n = 59) and low levels of patient activation for self-management (PAM ≤55.1 points) were present in 56% of the patients. PAM Scores correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with mMRC (ρ = -0.476), HADS-A (ρ = -0.326), HADS-D (ρ = -0.459), and EQ-5D-5L (ρ = 0.393). In patients with sarcoidosis (n = 59), the mean PAM score was 55.7 (11.0) points, and 46% of the patients reported low PAM levels. Significant correlations were found with mMRC (ρ = -0.356), HADS-A (ρ = -0.394), HADS-D (ρ = -0.478), and EQ-5D-5L (ρ = 0.313). CONCLUSION: About half of the outpatients with IPF or sarcoidosis have a low degree of activation for self-management, and these patients generally report more dyspnea, anxiety, depression, and a lower health status. Whether patients with a low degree of activation can be successful in self-managing their disease remains to be determined.

Profiling of Patients with COPD for Adequate Referral to Exercise-Based Care: The Dutch Model.

A loss of physical functioning (i.e., a low physical capacity and/or a low physical activity) is a common feature in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To date, the primary care physiotherapy and specialized pulmonary rehabilitation are clearly underused, and limited to patients with a moderate to very severe degree of airflow limitation (GOLD stage 2 or higher). However, improved referral rates are a necessity to lower the burden for patients with COPD and for society. Therefore, a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals and scientists proposes a new model for referral of patients with COPD to the right type of exercise-based care, irrespective of the degree of airflow limitation. Indeed, disease instability (recent hospitalization, yes/no), the burden of disease (no/low, mild/moderate or high), physical capacity (low or preserved) and physical activity (low or preserved) need to be used to allocate patients to one of the six distinct patient profiles. Patients with profile 1 or 2 will not be referred for physiotherapy; patients with profiles 3-5 will be referred for primary care physiotherapy; and patients with profile 6 will be referred for screening for specialized pulmonary rehabilitation. The proposed Dutch model has the intention to get the right patient with COPD allocated to the right type of exercise-based care and at the right moment.

Therapeutic validity and effectiveness of supervised physical exercise training on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of supervised physical exercise training on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taken into consideration indices such as therapeutic validity of interventions, methodological quality of studies, and exercise volume. DATA RESOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro databases were searched from inception until 17 July 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of supervised exercise training vs. usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The references of included studies and review articles were hand searched for additional references and key authors of included trials were crosschecked in PubMed for any missed references. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed therapeutic validity of exercise training and methodological quality of included studies. Overall effects were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies involving 756 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were included. Significant differences in maximal exercise capacity (standardized mean difference 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74) and endurance exercise capacity (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) in favor of physical exercise training were found. The volume of physical exercise per week, the total volume of physical exercise, or their associations did not significantly influence the effect of training. CONCLUSION: Effects of supervised physical exercise was not significantly altered by therapeutic validity. A combination of aerobic exercise and strength training was found to be more effective than strength training or endurance training alone in increasing the 6-minute walking distance.

Validity and usability of low-cost accelerometers for internet-based self-monitoring of physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The importance of regular physical activity for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is well-established. However, many patients do not meet the recommended daily amount. Accelerometers might provide patients with the information needed to increase physical activity in daily life. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the validity and usability of low-cost Internet-connected accelerometers. Furthermore we explored patients' preferences with regards to the presentation of and feedback on monitored physical activity. METHODS: To assess concurrent validity we conducted a field validation study with patients who wore two low-cost accelerometers, Fitbit and Physical Activity Monitor (PAM), at the same time along with a sophisticated multisensor accelerometer (SenseWear Armband) for 48 hours. Data on energy expenditure assessed from registrations from the two low-cost accelerometers were compared to the well validated SenseWear Armband which served as a reference criterion. Usability was examined in a cross-over study with patients who, in succession, wore the Fitbit and the PAM for 7 consecutive days and filled out a 16 item questionnaire with regards to the use of the corresponding device RESULTS: The agreement between energy expenditure (METs) from the SenseWear Armband with METs estimated by the Fitbit and PAM was good (r=.77) and moderate (r=.41), respectively. The regression model that was developed for the Fitbit explained 92% whereas the PAM-model could explain 89% of total variance in METs measured by the SenseWear. With regards to the usability, both the Fitbit and PAM were well rated on all items. There were no significant differences between the two devices. CONCLUSIONS: The low-cost Fitbit and PAM are valid and usable devices to measure physical activity in patients with COPD. These devices may be useful in long-term interventions aiming at increasing physical activity levels in these patients.