Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction This study aimed to determine whether a 6-week behaviour change intervention was more effective than a sham intervention for reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Methods People with stable COPD on the waitlist for entry into pulmonary rehabilitation were recruited to this multicentre trial with randomisation (independent, concealed allocation) to either an intervention group or sham group, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The behaviour change intervention consisted of once weekly sessions for 6 weeks with a physiotherapist to reduce SB through education, guided goals setting and real-time feedback on SB. The sham intervention consisted of once weekly phone calls for 6 weeks to monitor health status. SB was measured continuously over 7 days using thigh-worn accelerometry (activPAL3 micro). The primary outcome was time spent in SB. Participants with at least 4 days of ≥10 hours waking wear time were included in the ITT analysis and those who reported achieving ≥70% of goals to reduce SB or who completed all sham calls were included in a per-protocol analysis.
Results 70 participants were recruited and 65 completed the study (mean±SD age 74±9 years, mean FEV1 55%±19% predicted, 49% male). At 6 weeks, no between-group differences in time spent in SB were observed in the ITT analysis (mean difference 5 min/day, 95% CI −38 to 48) or per-protocol analysis (−16 min/day, 95% CI −80 to 48).
Discussion A 6-week behaviour change intervention did not reduce time in SB compared with a sham intervention in people with stable moderate-to-severe COPD prior to pulmonary rehabilitation.
- emphysema
- exercise
- psychology
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified participant data are available on reasonable request from ZJM (zoe.mckeough@sydney.edu.au). The study protocol has been published and is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2017.04.001.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified participant data are available on reasonable request from ZJM (zoe.mckeough@sydney.edu.au). The study protocol has been published and is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2017.04.001.
Footnotes
Twitter @soniawmcheng, @RenaeMcnamara
Contributors SWMC, JAA, ES, SD and ZJM contributed to conception and design of the research project and analysis and interpretation of the findings. SWMC, RM and LS were responsible for experimental data collection and data management. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and critical appraisal of content.
Funding This work was supported by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation under a Seeding Grant (number S16-011) and the Better Breathing Foundation.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Linked Articles
- Airwaves