Facilitating education in pulmonary rehabilitation using the Living Well with COPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation: a process evaluation
- Equal contributors
1 Centre of Health and Rehabilitation Technologies (CHaRT), Institute of Nursing and Health research, School of Health Sciences, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, BT37 OQB, Northern Ireland
2 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, BT9 7AB, Northern Ireland
3 Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, H2X 2P4, Canada
4 (Current affiliation) Northern Ireland Clinical Research Network (Respiratory Health), Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, BT9 7AB, Northern Ireland
BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2013, 13:50 doi:10.1186/1471-2466-13-50Published: 5 August 2013
Standardised evidenced-based materials and mechanisms to facilitate the delivery of the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation are not widely available. The aims of this study were: 1) to adapt the self-management programme Living Well with COPD (LWWCOPD) programme, for embedding in pulmonary rehabilitation; and, 2) to conduct a process evaluation of the adapted programme.
The adaptations to the LWWCOPD programme were informed by focus groups, current practice, relevant research and guideline documents. Pulmonary rehabilitation sites used the adapted programme, the LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation, to deliver the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation. A process evaluation was conducted: elements included reach (patients’ attendance rates), dose delivered (amount of programme delivered), dose received (health professional and patient satisfaction) and fidelity (impact on patients’ knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy on the Understanding COPD questionnaire). Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) were used to summarise demographics and key data from the feedback questionnaires. Qualitative feedback on the programme was collated and categorised. Changes in the Understanding COPD questionnaire were examined using paired t-tests.
The LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation was delivered in eleven hospital- and community-based programmes (n=25 health professionals, n=57 patients with COPD). It consisted of six weekly 30–45 minute sessions. The process evaluation showed positive results: 62.3% of patients attended ≥ 4 education sessions (reach); mean (SD) 90 (10)% of the session content were delivered (dose delivered); the majority of sessions were rated as excellent or good by health professionals and patients. Patients’ satisfaction was high: mean (SD) Section B of the Understanding COPD questionnaire: 91.67 (9.55)% (dose received). Knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy improved significantly: mean change (95% CI): Section A of the Understanding COPD questionnaire: 26.75 (21.74 to 31.76)%, BCKQ 10.64 (6.92 to 14.37)% (fidelity).
This rigorous process evaluation has demonstrated that the LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation can be used to deliver high quality, consistent and equitable education sessions during hospital and community-based pulmonary rehabilitation. This programme is now available worldwide (http://www.livingwellwithcopd.com/living-well-and-pulmonary-rehabilitation.html webcite).
This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (reference number: NCT01226836)