Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial

Emily Arden-Close, Sarah Kirby, Lucy Yardley, Anne Bruton, Benjamin Ainsworth, Mike Thomas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1139-1149
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Rehabilitation
Volume33
Issue number7
Early online date27 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2019

Keywords

  • Breathing exercises
  • quality of life
  • quantitative process analysis
  • randomized controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma : quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial. / Arden-Close, Emily; Kirby, Sarah; Yardley, Lucy; Bruton, Anne; Ainsworth, Benjamin; Thomas, Mike.

In: Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 33, No. 7, 01.07.2019, p. 1139-1149.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{875e7698e4aa48fba5c13ae3f4ee5f1a,
title = "Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial",
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.",
keywords = "Breathing exercises, quality of life, quantitative process analysis, randomized controlled trial",
author = "Emily Arden-Close and Sarah Kirby and Lucy Yardley and Anne Bruton and Benjamin Ainsworth and Mike Thomas",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0269215519832942",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "1139--1149",
journal = "Clinical Rehabilitation",
issn = "0269-2155",
publisher = "Sage Publications",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma

T2 - quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomized controlled trial

AU - Arden-Close, Emily

AU - Kirby, Sarah

AU - Yardley, Lucy

AU - Bruton, Anne

AU - Ainsworth, Benjamin

AU - Thomas, Mike

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

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.

AB - 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.

KW - Breathing exercises

KW - quality of life

KW - quantitative process analysis

KW - randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062439941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0269215519832942

DO - 10.1177/0269215519832942

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1139

EP - 1149

JO - Clinical Rehabilitation

JF - Clinical Rehabilitation

SN - 0269-2155

IS - 7

ER -