Loading…
Mobile Phone App-Based or Face-to-Face Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COVID-19 Survivors
Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is recommended as a standard, effective, and important treatment for COVID-19 survivors who remain symptomatic after the acute phase. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effect of mobile phone-based PR application with face-to-face PR on the quality of life, anxiety, dep...
Saved in:
Published in: | Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research 2023-11, Vol.28 (6), p.699-706 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is recommended as a standard, effective, and important treatment for COVID-19 survivors who remain symptomatic after the acute phase. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effect of mobile phone-based PR application with face-to-face PR on the quality of life, anxiety, depression, and daily life activities of COVID-19 survivors.
A quasi-experimental was conducted on 65 COVID-19 survivors during 2022. Convenient sampling was done based on the inclusion criteria. The intervention group (
= 31) received PR through a mobile phone application, and the control group (
= 34) received face-to-face PR. Data were collected before and after the intervention in both groups using a demographic information questionnaire, SF-12, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and Barthel scale. For all tests, a maximum error of 5% was considered.
The two studied groups had no statistically significant difference with respect to all the investigated variables at baseline (
> 0.05). After the intervention, the mean anxiety and depression score of the patients in the control group was significantly lower than the intervention group (
= -3.46,
= 63,
= 0.01). After our intervention, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean quality of life and daily life activity scores between the two groups (
= -0.68,
= 63,
> 0.05).
The application of PR does not show a statistically significant difference in terms of improving the quality of life and daily activities compared with the face-to-face method; we suggest that the PR application be used as a cost-effective method when face-to-face PR is not possible. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1735-9066 2228-5504 |
DOI: | 10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_337_22 |