Chair-based versus standard home exercise programs in people with COPD: A randomized controlled trial
Heart and Lung, cilt.79, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 79
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2026.102844
- Dergi Adı: Heart and Lung
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Pulmonary rehabilitation, Home-based exercise, Functional capacity, Respiratory muscle strength, Physical activity level
- Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background: Chair-based exercise may represent a practical alternative for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience balance limitations, fatigue, or difficulty performing standing exercises. Objectives: To compare the effects of chair-based and standard home-based exercise programmes in people with COPD. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 64 clinically stable patients with COPD were allocated to a Standard Exercise Group (SGr,n = 32) or a Chair-Based Exercise Group (ChGr,n = 32). Both groups completed an 8-week home-based exercise programme (5 days/week) supported by exercise videos, two live online supervised sessions, and weekly follow-up calls; no blinding was applied. Outcomes included the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), pulmonary function, maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP), peripheral muscle strength, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form (IPAQ-SF), and Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Adverse events were monitored. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in dyspnoea, fatigue, HADS scores, total physical activity, and all SGRQ domains (p < 0.01). In the chair-based group, 6MWT distance (p = 0.003), MIP and MEP (p = 0.025 and p = 0.028), and peak expiratory flow percentage (PEF%; p = 0.044) increased significantly. Between-group differences were observed only for changes in MEP% (p = 0.032) and PEF% (p = 0.01), favouring the chair-based group. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Both interventions improved symptoms, physical activity, and quality of life, while significant improvements in functional capacity and selected respiratory parameters were observed only in the chair-based group.