Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial.
Clin Rehabil 2019; 33(7):1139-1149CR

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Explore qualitative differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB) versus usual care) in the BREATHE (Breathing Retraining for Asthma Trial of Home Exercises) trial of breathing retraining for asthma.

DESIGN

Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial.

SETTING

Primary care.

SUBJECTS

Adults with asthma (DVD and booklet, n = 261; F2FB, n = 132).

MAIN MEASURES

Baseline - expectancy about breathing retraining; follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months - self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; all time points - anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), AQLQ (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire).

RESULTS

No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (P < 0.05) indicated that at follow-up, F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVD and booklet participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing: 7.42 (1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVD and booklet)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%)). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to quality of life. In the DVD and booklet arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in quality of life at 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.

Authors+Show Affiliations

1 Department of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.2 Academic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.2 Academic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 3 School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.4 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.2 Academic Unit of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 5 Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 6 Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.5 Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30813767

Citation

Arden-Close, Emily Julia, et al. "Evaluation of a Breathing Retraining Intervention to Improve Quality of Life in Asthma: Quantitative Process Analysis of the BREATHE Randomized Controlled Trial." Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 7, 2019, pp. 1139-1149.
Arden-Close EJ, Kirby SE, Yardley L, et al. Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(7):1139-1149.
Arden-Close, E. J., Kirby, S. E., Yardley, L., Bruton, A., Ainsworth, B., & Thomas, D. M. (2019). Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 33(7), pp. 1139-1149. doi:10.1177/0269215519832942.
Arden-Close EJ, et al. Evaluation of a Breathing Retraining Intervention to Improve Quality of Life in Asthma: Quantitative Process Analysis of the BREATHE Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(7):1139-1149. PubMed PMID: 30813767.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial. AU - Arden-Close,Emily Julia, AU - Kirby,Sarah E, AU - Yardley,Lucy, AU - Bruton,Anne, AU - Ainsworth,Ben, AU - Thomas,D Mike, Y1 - 2019/02/27/ PY - 2019/3/1/pubmed PY - 2019/11/5/medline PY - 2019/3/1/entrez KW - Breathing exercises KW - quality of life KW - quantitative process analysis KW - randomized controlled trial SP - 1139 EP - 1149 JF - Clinical rehabilitation JO - Clin Rehabil VL - 33 IS - 7 N2 - OBJECTIVE: Explore qualitative differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB) versus usual care) in the BREATHE (Breathing Retraining for Asthma Trial of Home Exercises) trial of breathing retraining for asthma. DESIGN: Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial. SETTING: Primary care. SUBJECTS: Adults with asthma (DVD and booklet, n = 261; F2FB, n = 132). MAIN MEASURES: Baseline - expectancy about breathing retraining; follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months - self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; all time points - anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), AQLQ (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire). RESULTS: No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (P < 0.05) indicated that at follow-up, F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVD and booklet participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing: 7.42 (1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVD and booklet)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%)). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to quality of life. In the DVD and booklet arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in quality of life at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL. SN - 1477-0873 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30813767/Evaluation_of_a_breathing_retraining_intervention_to_improve_quality_of_life_in_asthma:_quantitative_process_analysis_of_the_BREATHE_randomized_controlled_trial_ L2 - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269215519832942?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -