SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prince, K.
Right arrow Articles by Helm, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Prince, K.
Right arrow Articles by Helm, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Effectiveness of a rehabilitation programme in chronic bronchitis and emphysema

KL Prince

City Hospital, Edinburgh

M. Helm

Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

Thirty-nine patients with stable chronic bronchitis and emphysema were randomly allocated into two groups. Eight withdrew before the study and six during the study. One group received six weeks active outpatient rehabilitation, the other (control) group six weeks attendance without rehabilitation. Before entry, patients were examined to assess stability and measure arterial blood gases. On both entry and completion the following were recorded: smoking history; carboxyhaemoglobin; FEVI; six minute walking distance (6MD); the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) of breathlessness.

The treatment group showed a significant (p > 0.01) reduction in GHQ score after rehabilitation, suggesting a decrease in psychiatric symptoms. In the control group, the GHQ score reduction was not statistically significant. The control group, but not the treatment group, showed a significant (p > 0.05) increase in 6MD. No significant difference was found in FEV1, VAS score, or the number of patients smoking after rehabilitation. Our rehabilitation programme appeared to benefit patients' psychological wellbeing, but this may be due to attendance at the groups rather than the rehabilitation programme per se. Underlying disease severity or perception of disability did not change.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 3, No. 3, 211-214 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/026921558900300305
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement