Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma; quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised 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 group differences between participants in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial of physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma, delivered by DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB), versus usual care. 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 (DVDB 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), asthma QoL (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 DVDB 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) (DVDB)). 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 QoL. In the DVDB arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in QoL at 12 months. Conclusions: Adults with asthma receiving physiotherapy breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet, but practice is not related to QoL. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.
LanguageEnglish
JournalClinical Rehabilitation
Early online date27 Feb 2019
DOIs
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 27 Feb 2019

Cite this

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

In: Clinical Rehabilitation, 27.02.2019.

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 randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Objective: Explore group differences between participants in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial of physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma, delivered by DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB), versus usual care. 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 (DVDB 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), asthma QoL (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 DVDB 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) (DVDB)). 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 QoL. In the DVDB arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9{\%} of variance in QoL at 12 months. Conclusions: Adults with asthma receiving physiotherapy breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet, but practice is not related to QoL. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.",
author = "Emily Arden-Close and Sarah Kirby and Lucy Yardley and Anne Bruton and Benjamin Ainsworth and Mike Thomas",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1177/0269215519832942",
language = "English",
journal = "Clinical Rehabilitation",
issn = "0269-2155",
publisher = "Sage Publications",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma; quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial

AU - Arden-Close, Emily

AU - Kirby, Sarah

AU - Yardley, Lucy

AU - Bruton, Anne

AU - Ainsworth, Benjamin

AU - Thomas, Mike

PY - 2019/2/27

Y1 - 2019/2/27

N2 - Objective: Explore group differences between participants in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial of physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma, delivered by DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB), versus usual care. 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 (DVDB 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), asthma QoL (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 DVDB 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) (DVDB)). 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 QoL. In the DVDB arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in QoL at 12 months. Conclusions: Adults with asthma receiving physiotherapy breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet, but practice is not related to QoL. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.

AB - Objective: Explore group differences between participants in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial of physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma, delivered by DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB), versus usual care. 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 (DVDB 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), asthma QoL (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 DVDB 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) (DVDB)). 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 QoL. In the DVDB arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in QoL at 12 months. Conclusions: Adults with asthma receiving physiotherapy breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet, but practice is not related to QoL. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL.

U2 - 10.1177/0269215519832942

DO - 10.1177/0269215519832942

M3 - Article

JO - Clinical Rehabilitation

T2 - Clinical Rehabilitation

JF - Clinical Rehabilitation

SN - 0269-2155

ER -