The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma; quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial
Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma; quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial
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.
0269-2155
Arden-Close, Emily J.
a818e544-2527-4873-a8f2-21efc68b1b2f
Kirby, Sarah
9be57c1b-5ab7-4444-829e-d8e5dbe2370b
Yardley, Lucy
64be42c4-511d-484d-abaa-f8813452a22e
Bruton, Anne
9f8b6076-6558-4d99-b7c8-72b03796ed95
Ainsworth, Ben
b02d78c3-aa8b-462d-a534-31f1bf164f81
Thomas, Mike
997c78e0-3849-4ce8-b1bc-86ebbdee3953
Arden-Close, Emily J.
a818e544-2527-4873-a8f2-21efc68b1b2f
Kirby, Sarah
9be57c1b-5ab7-4444-829e-d8e5dbe2370b
Yardley, Lucy
64be42c4-511d-484d-abaa-f8813452a22e
Bruton, Anne
9f8b6076-6558-4d99-b7c8-72b03796ed95
Ainsworth, Ben
b02d78c3-aa8b-462d-a534-31f1bf164f81
Thomas, Mike
997c78e0-3849-4ce8-b1bc-86ebbdee3953

Arden-Close, Emily J., Kirby, Sarah, Yardley, Lucy, Bruton, Anne, Ainsworth, Ben and Thomas, Mike (2019) Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma; quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. (doi:10.1177/0269215519832942).

Record type: Article

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.

Text
BREATHE_quantitative_process_paper_accepted_version - Accepted Manuscript
Download (57kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 February 2019
Published date: 27 February 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 429077
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/429077
ISSN: 0269-2155
PURE UUID: 2461c797-25aa-4c1e-b86c-1d9a4a8f8f23
ORCID for Sarah Kirby: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1759-1356
ORCID for Lucy Yardley: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-883X
ORCID for Anne Bruton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4550-2536
ORCID for Ben Ainsworth: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5098-1092

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 20 Mar 2019 17:30
Last modified: 15 Oct 2019 00:53

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×