Characteristics of Virtual Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs in the United States: Results from a National Electronic Survey.

Marilyn L Moy, Judy Corn, Aimee Kizziar, Rachel Kaye, Grace Anne Dorney Koppel, Surya P Bhatt, Richard Casaburi, Julia T Desiato, Chris Garvey
{"title":"Characteristics of Virtual Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs in the United States: Results from a National Electronic Survey.","authors":"Marilyn L Moy, Judy Corn, Aimee Kizziar, Rachel Kaye, Grace Anne Dorney Koppel, Surya P Bhatt, Richard Casaburi, Julia T Desiato, Chris Garvey","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202408-896OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Understanding virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (VPR) in the United States would inform clinicians and patients, guide healthcare systems to ensure quality and safety, and inform payers on reimbursement issues. <b>Objectives:</b> To characterize United States VPR programs. <b>Methods:</b> A 40-question online survey was developed by the American Thoracic Society PR Reimbursement Working Group to assess delivery methods, program content, and outcome assessments. United States VPR programs were identified from the Live Better database, the internet, and scientific publications. Veterans Affairs (VA) sites were identified from an email sent to medical service chiefs asking whether their site offered VPR. The survey was sent to 53 programs using SurveyMonkey. Responses were summarized as percentages of available data. The 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes were used to characterize rurality. <b>Results:</b> Twenty-five sites currently and five previously offered VPR; 23 were offered by an outpatient hospital department (7 non-VA, 16 VA), 5 were commercial, 1 was physician office-based, and 1 was independent. Eighty-four percent of VPR programs (16 of 19) offered by outpatient hospital departments concomitantly provided in-person PR, as did 25% of commercial sites (1 of 4). The delivery method was \"live\" two-way videoconferencing for 88% of sites (22 of 25); 47% of VA sites (7 of 15) also used telephone-based delivery, and 60% of commercial entities (3 of 5) also used prerecorded videos or website/mobile applications. Ninety-two percent of programs (23 of 25) provided exercise prescription and resistance training, and 96% (24 of 25) provided aerobic training. Nearly one quarter of respondents did not describe exercise progression. Seventy-four percent of all programs (17 of 23) provided exercise equipment, with 54% of VA programs (7 of 13) using pedometers. Thirty-five percent of outpatient hospital department sites (6 of 17) conducted outcome assessments only in person, 12% (2 of 17) conducted them only virtually, and 53% (9 of 17) provided both options, whereas 100% of commercial programs (5 of 5) did so virtually. The 6-minute-walk test was the most common measure of exercise performance, used by 76% of outpatient hospital department sites (13 of 17) and 20% of commercial programs (1 of 5). All VPR addresses were categorized as metropolitan or \"micropolitan\"; none were small-town or rural. <b>Conclusions:</b> VPR in the United States is heterogeneous. Although most facilities delivered the broad components of PR, there is a lack of in-person assessments, in-person standardized exercise testing, and plans for exercise progression, most notably by commercial programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"1140-1146"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12329324/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202408-896OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Understanding virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (VPR) in the United States would inform clinicians and patients, guide healthcare systems to ensure quality and safety, and inform payers on reimbursement issues. Objectives: To characterize United States VPR programs. Methods: A 40-question online survey was developed by the American Thoracic Society PR Reimbursement Working Group to assess delivery methods, program content, and outcome assessments. United States VPR programs were identified from the Live Better database, the internet, and scientific publications. Veterans Affairs (VA) sites were identified from an email sent to medical service chiefs asking whether their site offered VPR. The survey was sent to 53 programs using SurveyMonkey. Responses were summarized as percentages of available data. The 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes were used to characterize rurality. Results: Twenty-five sites currently and five previously offered VPR; 23 were offered by an outpatient hospital department (7 non-VA, 16 VA), 5 were commercial, 1 was physician office-based, and 1 was independent. Eighty-four percent of VPR programs (16 of 19) offered by outpatient hospital departments concomitantly provided in-person PR, as did 25% of commercial sites (1 of 4). The delivery method was "live" two-way videoconferencing for 88% of sites (22 of 25); 47% of VA sites (7 of 15) also used telephone-based delivery, and 60% of commercial entities (3 of 5) also used prerecorded videos or website/mobile applications. Ninety-two percent of programs (23 of 25) provided exercise prescription and resistance training, and 96% (24 of 25) provided aerobic training. Nearly one quarter of respondents did not describe exercise progression. Seventy-four percent of all programs (17 of 23) provided exercise equipment, with 54% of VA programs (7 of 13) using pedometers. Thirty-five percent of outpatient hospital department sites (6 of 17) conducted outcome assessments only in person, 12% (2 of 17) conducted them only virtually, and 53% (9 of 17) provided both options, whereas 100% of commercial programs (5 of 5) did so virtually. The 6-minute-walk test was the most common measure of exercise performance, used by 76% of outpatient hospital department sites (13 of 17) and 20% of commercial programs (1 of 5). All VPR addresses were categorized as metropolitan or "micropolitan"; none were small-town or rural. Conclusions: VPR in the United States is heterogeneous. Although most facilities delivered the broad components of PR, there is a lack of in-person assessments, in-person standardized exercise testing, and plans for exercise progression, most notably by commercial programs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国虚拟肺康复项目的特点:来自全国电子调查的结果。
理由:了解美国的虚拟肺康复(VPR)将为临床医生和患者提供信息,指导医疗保健系统确保质量和安全,并告知付款人有关报销问题。目的:了解美国VPR项目的特点。方法:美国胸科学会PR报销工作组开发了一项包含40个问题的在线调查,以评估交付方法、项目内容和结果评估。美国VPR计划是从Livebetter数据库、互联网和科学出版物中确定的。退伍军人事务部(VA)网站是从一封发送给医疗服务主管的电子邮件中确定的,该电子邮件询问他们的网站是否提供VPR。该调查通过SurveyMonkey发送给53个程序。回答以可用数据的百分比汇总。2010年城乡通勤区域代码具有乡村特征。结果:目前有25个站点提供VPR,先前有5个站点提供VPR;23例由门诊医院部门提供(7例非退伍军人,16例退伍军人),5例为商业医院,1例为医生办公室,1例为独立医院。84%(16/19)的门诊医院部门提供的VPR项目同时提供面对面的PR,而25%(1/4)的商业网站提供这种服务。88%(22/25)的站点采用“现场”双向视频会议方式;47%(7/15)的VA网站也是基于电话的,60%(3/5)的商业实体也使用预先录制的视频或网站/移动应用程序。92%(23/25)的项目提供运动处方和阻力训练,96%(24/25)提供有氧训练。近四分之一的受访者没有描述锻炼的进展。74%(17/23)的项目提供运动器材,54%(7/13)的VA项目使用计步器。35%(6/17)的门诊医院部门站点只进行面对面的结果评估,12%(2/17)只进行虚拟评估,53%(9/17)提供两种选择,而100%(5/5)的商业项目进行虚拟评估。6分钟步行测试是最常见的运动表现衡量标准,76%(13/17)的门诊医院部门和20%(1/5)的商业项目使用了该测试。所有VPR地址都被分类为大都市或小城市;没有一个是小城镇或农村。结论:VPR在美国是异质的。尽管大多数人都提供了PR的广泛组成部分,但缺乏面对面的评估、面对面的标准化运动测试和运动进展计划,最明显的是商业项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Airway Plateau and Driving Pressures During Mechanical Ventilation - Underutilized and Often Misunderstood. Rurality and Long-Term Outcomes after Critical Illness. Improved Agreement Between In-Hospital and Time-Delimited Mortality by Including Hospice Discharges. Home Improvement Programs and Deadly Countertops: The Need to Protect Workers. Reply to Khan et al: "Home Improvement Programs and Deadly Countertops: The Need to Protect Workers".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1