Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ERJ Open Research logoLink to ERJ Open Research
. 2024 Jul 22;10(4):00108-2024. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00108-2024

Physical capacity and inactivity in obstructive airway diseases: a “can do, do do” analysis

Paola D Urroz Guerrero 1,2,3, Hayley Lewthwaite 1,2,3, Peter G Gibson 1,3,4,5, Vanessa L Clark 1,2,3, Laura Cordova-Rivera 6,7, Vanessa M McDonald 1,2,3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC11261380  PMID: 39040591

Abstract

Introduction

Physical capacity is an important determinant of physical activity in people with obstructive airway disease (OAD). This study aimed to extend the “can do, do do” concept in people with OAD, to identify if people categorised into quadrants based on physical capacity and activity differ by clinical and movement behaviour characteristics.

Methods

A total of 281 participants (bronchiectasis n=60, severe asthma n=93, COPD n=70 and control n=58) completed assessments to characterise physical capacity as “can do” versus “can't do” (6-min walk distance < or ≥70% pred) and physical activity as “do do” versus “don't do” (accelerometer-derived moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) < or ≥150 min·week−1).

Results

The control group had a greater proportion of people in the “can do, do do” quadrant compared with the OAD groups (76% versus 10–33%). People with OAD in the “can't do, don‘t do” quadrant had worse clinical characteristics (airflow limitation, comorbidities, quality of life and functional dyspnoea) and spent less time doing light-intensity physical activity (LPA) and more time being sedentary compared with the “can do, do do” quadrant.

Discussion

This study highlights that many people with OAD may be inactive because they do not have the physical capacity to participate in MVPA, which is further impacted by greater disease severity. It is important to consider the potential benefits of addressing LPA and sedentary behaviour due to suboptimal levels of these movement behaviours across different quadrants. Future research is needed to investigate if tailoring intervention approaches based on quadrant allocation is effective in people with OAD.

Shareable abstract

People with bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD may not have the physical capacity to participate in moderate to vigorous physical activity. It is also important to consider the potential benefits of addressing other movement behaviours.

Introduction

Physical activity is recommended for the management of obstructive airway diseases (OAD) and is associated with improved symptoms and quality of life, as well as reduced risk of hospitalisation and premature death [1–3]. However, people living with OAD engage in less physical activity than those without OAD [4]. Despite the recognised importance of addressing reduced physical activity in people with OAD, there is limited evidence around how to effectively achieve this. Low physical capacity is one of the many factors shown to be associated with reduced physical activity in OAD [5]. The “can do, do do” is a concept developed by Koolen et al. [6] to understand if a person's ability (physical capacity) to perform daily life activities contributes to their participation (physical activity). The concept categorises people into four quadrants based on measured physical capacity (preserved physical capacity=“can do” versus low physical capacity=“can't do”) and participation in physical activity (physically active=“do, do” versus physically inactive=“don't do”), and may help to inform strategies to optimise physical activity levels. For example, people identified as “can't do, don't do” would likely benefit from physical activity interventions that target physical capacity, whereas those in the “can do, don't do” quadrant may require a different approach.

While the “can do, do do” concept has previously been explored in OAD, little is known about potential differences between different OAD groups. The existing “can do, do do” studies have also predominantly focused on the volume of physical activity participation (steps·day−1) rather than time spent in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) [6–8]. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence to support the optimisation of other movement behaviours including light-intensity physical activity (LPA) and sedentary behaviour (i.e. by replacing with LPA) as part of OAD management and as a stepping stone to target MVPA [9]. However, the LPA and sedentary behaviour profiles of people in each of these “can do, do do” quadrants are currently unknown. This study aims to extend the application of the “can do, do do” concept in people with and without OAD, to identify if people allocated to each quadrant, based on physical capacity and physical activity defined by MVPA, differ by clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Furthermore, we sought to determine if time spent in LPA and sedentary behaviour differed between quadrants in people with and without OAD. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

  • 1) What proportion of people with different OAD (bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD) are assigned to each quadrant of the “can do, do do” concept and how does this compare with controls?

  • 2) Are there differences in the clinical and movement behaviour characteristics between people with different OAD in each of the “can do, do do” concept quadrants?

We hypothesised that:

  • 1) The proportion of people with different OAD assigned to each quadrant of the “can do, do do” concept is different to people without OAD and the proportion of people with COPD assigned to each quadrant of the “can do, do do” concept’ is different to people with bronchiectasis and severe asthma.

  • 2a) Clinical outcomes of lung function, comorbidities, functional dyspnoea, anxiety and depression symptoms, and quality of life are different between the “can do, do do” concept quadrants in people with OAD.

  • 2b) Time spent in LPA and sedentary behaviour is different between the “can do, do do” concept quadrants in people with OAD.

Methods

Study design

This is a secondary analysis of data pooled from three studies: 1) a cross-sectional study characterising people with severe asthma, bronchiectasis and controls [10] (ethics approval: 08/08/20/3.10); 2) a cross-sectional study characterising breathlessness in people with asthma (ethics approval: 2019/ETH12515); and (3) baseline data from a randomised controlled trial in people with COPD (ethics approval: 12/12/12/3.06). Ethics approval was granted for all studies by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee. All participants completed assessments across two visits scheduled approximately 2 weeks apart. Studies were conducted according to good clinical practice guidelines and all participants provided written informed consent.

Setting

Visits were conducted at the Hunter Medical Research Institute (Newcastle, Australia) between March 2014 and July 2022. Participants were recruited from the research databases of the John Hunter Hospital's Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine and the Hunter Medical Research Institute, referred by their treating clinician/physician or identified via community advertisement.

Participants

Adults (≥18 years) with either bronchiectasis, severe asthma or COPD were included in the OAD groups. The control group were adults (≥18 years) without a known respiratory condition and without objective evidence of respiratory disease. Participants with bronchiectasis were included if they had a primary doctor diagnosis of bronchiectasis confirmed by high-resolution chest computed tomography. Participants with severe asthma were included if they had evidence of asthma (airway hyperresponsiveness or variable airflow limitation), were on monoclonal antibody therapy or were on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with a second controller according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society Severe Asthma Task Force [11] and remained uncontrolled. Participants with COPD were included if they had fixed airflow limitation (<80% pred post-bronchodilator forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) and <0.7 forced expiratory ratio or physician-confirmed COPD in people with reduced forced vital capacity (FVC)). Participants were excluded from the analysis if physical activity or physical capacity were not measured during the two visits or if physical activity data were not considered valid, as further detailed below.

Variables and measurements

A multidimensional assessment including demographic data, medical history and smoking history was completed as previously described [10]. Spirometry was performed prior to and 15 min following 400 μg of salbutamol to assess airflow limitation (Medgraphics, CPFS/D USB Spirometer, BreezeSuite v7.1-v8.6, MGC Diagnostics, Saint Paul, MN, USA). The 2012 Global Lung Index equations were used to calculate predicted values for FEV1 and FVC.

To assess physical capacity, participants completed a single 6-min walk test (6MWT), according to ATS technical standards, with the exception of using a 25 m track [12]. The total distance was recorded and expressed in relation to Australian population normative reference data to obtain percentages of predicted values [13]. Participants were considered to have preserved physical capacity if their 6-min walk distance (6MWD) was ≥70% of predicted, and low physical capacity if their 6MWD was <70% of predicted [6, – 8, 14].

Physical activity and sedentary behaviour data were obtained using a tri-axial accelerometer (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL, USA). Accelerations at 30 Hz rate in epochs of 10 s were collected from the device. Participants were instructed to wear the accelerometer around their waist on their dominant hip for 14 consecutive days. The data were managed and analysed using the ActiLife 6.11.6 Data Analysis Software (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL, USA). Physical activity data were considered valid with ≥10 h of wear-time per day for ≥4 days [15]. Nonwear and sleep time were removed from the analysis as defined by diary logs and visual examination of the activity data. The Freedson 1998 cut-points were used to categorise sedentary time (≤99 counts·min−1), LPA (100–1952 counts·min−1) and MVPA (≥1952 counts·min−1) [16]. Participants were categorised as being physically active if they participated in ≥150 min of MVPA per week or as physically inactive if they participated <150 min of MVPA per week. A week was considered a period of 7 days, with no specific criteria for weekdays or weekends. We calculated weekly MVPA minutes by dividing the total MVPA minutes during the wearing period by the number of days worn, then multiplying by seven.

The modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale was researcher-administered to assess the functional impact of dyspnoea [17]. Anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed using the self-assessment hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) [18]. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the participant-administered St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [19]. The Charlson comorbidity index was used to assess comorbidity levels [20].

Statistical methods

Descriptive summary statistics were used to characterise the sample. Normality assumptions for continuous data were checked with the Shapiro–Wilk test and distributional diagnostic plots. Differences between OAD (bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD) and control group characteristics were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous parametric variables, the Kruskal–Wallis test for nonparametric variables or the chi-squared test for dichotomous variables.

The chi-squared test was used to assess differences in the proportion of people in each of the “can do, do do” quadrants for the OAD and control groups. ANOVA evaluated clinical and movement behaviour characteristic differences between quadrants within the OAD and control groups. Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni corrections were conducted as appropriate. p-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 281 participants were included. Participant characteristics are summarised in table 1. There were 223 participants in the OAD group (bronchiectasis (n=60), severe asthma (n=93), COPD (n=70)) and 58 controls. Demographic, clinical and movement behaviour characteristics were significantly different between the OAD groups (bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD) and the control group, except for the proportion of current smokers and sedentary minutes per day (table 1).

TABLE 1.

Participant characteristics

Characteristic Bronchiectasis (n=60) Severe asthma (n=93) COPD (n=70) Controls (n=58) p-value OAD (n=223)
Demographic
 Age (years) 68.5 (61.3–74.0) 63.3 (46.6–70.7) 70.7 (64.6–75.3) 56.1 (34.1–64.9) <0.001 67.7 (59.0–72.6)
 Females (n) 51 (85%) 55 (59%) 30 (43%) 32 (55%) <0.001 136 (61%)
 BMI (kg·m−2) 25.4±4.9 31.1±7.2 30.9±7.3 25.4±4.1 <0.001 29.5±7.1
 CCI (score) 0 (0–3) 0 (0–3) 4 (3–5) 0 (0–0) <0.001 0 (0–4)
 Current smoker (n) 1 (2%) 5 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0.058 6 (3%)
 Ex-smoker (n) 23 (38%) 40 (43%) 70 (100%) 14 (24%) <0.001 133 (60%)
 Pack-years (years) 2 (0–20) 3 (0–17) 45 (32–74) 0 (0–2) <0.001 19 (1–43)
Clinical
 Post-BD FEV1 (% pred) 79.8±23.4 76.1±20.1 58.4±16.8 97.1±13.7 <0.001 71.5±21.9
 Post-BD FVC (% pred) 83.4±19.3 88.9±16.3 80.2±15.8 96.7±13.0 <0.001 84.8±17.3
 Post-BD FEV1/FVC (ratio) 0.72±0.12 0.67±0.14 0.55±0.15 0.79±0.08 <0.001 0.64±0.15
 6MWD (m) 458.6±111.2 466.3±104.3 376.9±123.4 613.1±79.6 <0.001 436.1±118.9
 6MWD (% pred) 73.2±15.5 73.4±14.3 61.8±18.8 86.8±12.1 <0.001 69.7±16.9
 mMRC (score) 1.1±0.9 1.9±1.3 1.9±1.1 0.2±0.4 <0.001 1.7±1.2
 SGRQ (total score) 37.3±17.1 41.4±20.4 50.7±16.0 <0.001 43.3±18.9
 HADS (total score) 9.5±6.1 11.0±6.3 11.4±7.1 5.2±4.3 <0.001 10.7±6.5
 HADS anxiety (sub score) 5.8±3.8 6.4±3.9 5.9±4.1 3.8±3.0 <0.001 6.1±3.9
 HADS depression (sub score) 3.7±3.1 4.6±3.2 5.6±3.7 1.3±1.7 <0.001 4.7±3.4
Movement behaviours
 Sedentary time (min·day−1) 702.5±110.0 720.0±225.5 734.6±118 681.8±87.3 0.255 719.9±169.6
 LPA (min·day−1) 162.0 (65.1–306.3) 167.3 (134.7–208.9) 126.5 (94.2–166.3) 162.6 (127.9–191.3) <0.001 150.1 (104.2–208.7)
 MVPA (min·day−1) 15.2 (6.2–28.3) 19.5 (12.2–33.2) 7.5 (2.4–14.8) 38.8 (26.4–63.5) <0.001 14.4 (6.4–27.4)
 MVPA (min·week−1) 106.1 (43.2–198.3) 136.5 (85.1–232.4) 52.5 (17.0–103.3) 271.6 (184.6–444.7) <0.001 100.8 (44.8–191.8)
Open in a new tab

Data are reported as mean±sd, median (interquartile range) or number (proportion). 6MWD: 6-min walk distance; BD: bronchodilator; BMI: body mass index; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC: forced vital capacity; HADS: hospital anxiety and depression scale; LPA: light-intensity physical activity; mMRC: modified Medical Research Council; MVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity OAD: obstructive airway disease; SGRQ: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire.

Compared with each OAD group, a greater proportion of the control group had preserved physical capacity (91% versus 37–63%) and were active (80% versus 14–45%). When comparing the OAD groups, a greater proportion of the COPD group had low physical capacity and were inactive compared with the bronchiectasis and severe asthma groups, who were similar (figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

The proportion of participants with or without preserved physical capacity (“can do” versus “can't do”) and participants that are physically active or inactive (“do do” versus “don't do”). *: p<0.05 compared to bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD; #: p<0.05 compared to bronchiectasis and severe asthma. OAD: obstructive airway disease.

Quadrant distribution per group

All participants were categorised into one of the four “can do, do do” quadrants. The distribution of participants per quadrant is shown in figure 2 and table 2. The control group had a greater proportion of people in the “can do, do do” quadrant compared with the OAD groups (figure 3). The COPD group had a lower proportion of people in the “can do, do do” quadrant compared with the bronchiectasis and severe asthma groups (p<0.05) (figure 3).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Distribution of all participants according to their physical activity levels and physical capacity. MVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity; 6MWD: 6-min walk distance.

TABLE 2.

Participant characteristics per “can do, do do” quadrant and disease group

Characteristic Can do, do do Can do, don't do Can't do, do do Can't do, don't do p-value
Combined OAD
 Total (n) 57 (26%) 65 (29%) 19 (9%) 82 (37%)
 Age (years) 63.0 (55.2–69.2) 69.0 (64.2–72.2)* 63.2 (51.0–70.0) 70.7 (61.9–75.4)* <0.001
 Female (n) 36 (63%) 48 (74%) 11 (58%) 41 (50%)# 0.031
 BMI (kg·m−2) 27.6±5.1 29.6±8.0 30.8±8.2 30.4±7.3 0.146
 CCI (score) 0.9±1.4 2.2±2.3* 1.4±1.7 3.3±2.4*#¶ <0.001
 Post-BD FEV1 (% pred) 82.5±18.8 75.2±18.1 76.5±22.0 60.1±21.4*#¶ <0.001
 mMRC (score) 1.0±0.9 1.5±1.1 1.8±1.3 2.3±1.2*# <0.001
 HADS (total score) 9 (6–12) 7 (5–14) 9 (5–14) 11 (7–16) 0.443
 HADS anxiety (sub score) 5.9±3.6 5.4±3.9 6.0±3.3 6.5±4.2 0.446
 HADS depression (sub score) 3.3±2.3 4.5±3.4 4.4±4.1 5.8±3.7* 0.002
 SGRQ (total score) 30.2±14.9 42.1±17.9* 43.3±21.6* 52.6±16.6*# <0.001
 Sedentary time (min·day−1) 692.9±167.2 713.9±153.3 665.3±205.4 762.5±166.7* 0.014
 LPA (min·day−1) 250.2 (181.0–297.5) 138.3 (105.4–177.1)* 225.9 (172.8–277.4) 112.9 (82.7–145.0)* <0.001
 MVPA (min·day−1) 34.8 (26.4–51.3) 13.1 (7.7–16.9)* 33.8 (28.2–51.5) 6.1 (3.0–11.6)* <0.001
Healthy controls
 Total (n) 44 (76%) 9 (16%) 2 (3%) 3 (5%)
 Age (years) 46.9±16.4 62.3±17.4 45.9±14.1 52.8±24.8 0.103
 Female (n) 27 (61%) 3 (33%) 1 (50%) 1 (33%) 0.389
 BMI (kg·m−2) 25.0±3.6 26.1±4.9 26.3±6.6 27.4±6.4 0.413
 CCI (score) 0.2±0.7 0.7±1.9 0.0±0.0 0.0±0.0 0.472
 Post-BD FEV1 (% pred) 97.3±14.4 96.4±14.6 101.8±0.0 93.2±0.7 0.924
 mMRC (score) 0.1±0.4 0.3±0.5 0.0±0.0 0.0±0.0 0.375
 HADS (total score) 5.3±4.3 5.7±1.4 5.5±0.8 1.7±0.6 0.548
 HADS anxiety (sub score) 4.0±3.1 3.9±3.3 5.0±1.4 1.0±0.0 0.391
 HADS depression (sub score) 1.3±1.7 1.8±2.1 0.5±0.7 0.7±0.6 0.688
 Sedentary time (min·day−1) 668.1±78.5 731.8±115.8 672.2±114.4 738.8±64.7 0.148
 LPA (min·day−1) 169.4±46.9 140.6±27.2 205.9±138.9 137.7±26.2 0.168
 MVPA (min·day−1) 50.6±19.7 14.7±5.1* 35.9±1.1 14.5±4.6* <0.001
Bronchiectasis
 Total (n) 20 (33%) 18 (30%) 4 (7%) 18 (30%)
 Age (years) 61.6±11.9 66.8±14.4 66.3±10.3 67.6±13.9 0.503
 Female (n) 16 (80%) 18 (100%) 4 (100%) 13 (72%) 0.087
 BMI (kg·m−2) 25.3±4.0 25.4±6.3 26.2±8.0 25.6±4.0 0.980
 CCI (score) 0.5±1.0 0.9±1.7 1.0±2.0 2.5±2.3* 0.005
 Post-BD FEV1 (% pred) 94.4±15.1 79.2±18.2 88.7±23.7 60.7±24.8* <0.001
 mMRC (score) 0.7±0.7 1.1±0.8 1.0±0.8 1.7±1.1* 0.011
 HADS (total score) 7.9±5.6 9.2±6.6 8.5±1.3 11.9±6.5 0.232
 HADS anxiety (sub score) 4.6±3.5 5.7±4.4 5.3±1.3 6.5±3.4 0.757
 HADS depression (sub score) 2.3±2.0 3.4±3.0 3.3±1.8 5.2±4.1 0.053
 SGRQ (total score) 27.9±15.7 33.6±16.8 38.5±9.5 50.3±14.2*# <0.001
 Sedentary time (min·day−1) 661.8±83.0 691.0±135.4 671.9±71.5 766.1±91.9* 0.022
 LPA (min·day−1) 374.7±165.8 98.7±60.4* 411.0±58.0 90.6±67.1* <0.001
 MVPA (min·day−1) 38.0±16.3 9.7±5.9* 30.1±3.9 8.1±5.0* <0.001
Severe asthma
 Total (n) 30 (32%) 28 (30%) 12 (13%) 23 (25%)
 Age (years) 57.6±13.4 60.4±14.5 55.4±15.8 60.0±16.1 0.732
 Female (n) 18 (60%) 20 (71%) 7 (58%) 10 (44%) 0.251
 BMI (kg·m−2) 29.1±6.1 32.3±8.7 32.3±7.1 31.7±6.4 0.312
 CCI (score) 0.7±1.3 1.6±2.2 1.2±1.7 1.7±2.1 0.177
 Post-BD FEV1 (% pred) 76.7±19.0 78.3±20.6 78.0±19.5 71.7±21.7 0.675
 mMRC (score) 1.4±1.2 1.8±1.1 2.3±1.4 2.7±1.2*# <0.001
 HADS (total score) 11.1±4.7 10.6±6.4 9.3±7.6 12.4±7.4 0.579
 HADS anxiety (sub score) 7.0±3.3 5.8±3.9 5.4±3.7 6.9±4.6 0.480
 HADS depression (sub score) 4.1±2.1 4.8±3.3 3.9±4.3 5.4±3.5 0.385
 SGRQ (total score) 29.5±14.0 45.7±18.7* 40.9±25.5 52.0±19.5* <0.001
 Sedentary time (min·day−1) 710.4±222.3 728.5±198.5 645.0±251.3 761.5±250.2 0.539
 LPA (min·day−1) 207.7±61.8 155.8±34.4* 212.7±39.7 141.3±37.1* <0.001
 MVPA (min·day−1) 40.8±16.6 14.7±4.7* 41.6±19.9 9.9±4.7* <0.001
COPD
 Total (n) 7 (10%) 19 (27%) 3 (4%) 41 (59%)
 Age (years) 63.5±5.7 70.7±5.8 59.2±6.7 71.3±7.6* 0.003
 Female (n) 2 (29%) 10 (53%) 0 (0%) 18 (44%) 0.309
 BMI (kg·m−2) 29.6±2.4 29.4±6.1 30.8±13.4 31.6±8.1 0.678
 CCI (score) 3.0±1.2 4.3±1.4 2.7±0.6 4.6±1.9 0.043+
 Post-BD FEV1 (% pred) 70.7±16.2 65.4±12.2 53.9±18.4 53.1±16.9*# 0.008
 mMRC (score) 1.0±0.6 1.6±1.2 1.3±0.6 2.3±1.0* 0.006
 HADS (total score) 8.4±7.4 10.1±6.8 17.0±5.0 12.0±7.3 0.246
 HADS anxiety (sub score) 5.0±4.2 4.8±3.6 9.0±1.0 6.2±4.3 0.265
 HADS depression (sub score) 3.4±3.4 5.3±3.9 8.0±4.6 6.1±3.7 0.245
 SGRQ (total score) 39.3±14.9 46.4±15.9 59.3±3.2 53.9±15.9 0.051
 Sedentary time (min·day−1) 638.9±77.2 700.8±71.2 737.4±120.0 766.3±130.2* 0.024
 LPA (min·day−1) 204.6±64.9 147.3±41.4* 105.6±15.9* 119.6±47.9* <0.001
 MVPA (min·day−1) 47.5±28.4 10.0±6.0* 46.5±9.3 5.7±4.7* <0.001
Open in a new tab

Data are reported as mean±sd, median (interquartile range) or number (proportion). *: p<0.05 compared to “can do, do do”. #: p<0.05 compared to “can do, don't do”. : p<0.05 compared to “can't do, do do”. *: No longer significant post hoc. BD: bronchodilator; BMI: body mass index; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; HADS: hospital anxiety and depression scale; LPA: light-intensity physical activity; mMRC: modified Medical Research Council; MVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity; OAD: obstructive airway disease; SGRQ: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Proportion of participants per “can do, do do” quadrant according to participant population. *: p<0.05 compared to bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD. #: p<0.05 compared to bronchiectasis and severe asthma. OAD: obstructive airway disease.

Key clinical characteristics of each quadrant, per group

Differences between the clinical characteristics per quadrant of people with OAD or controls are summarised in table 2. There were no differences in clinical characteristics between the quadrants for the control group. For the OAD groups, compared with the “can do, do do” quadrant, the “can't do, don't do” quadrant generally included people with more comorbidities (OAD combined and bronchiectasis), reduced FEV1 % pred (OAD combined, bronchiectasis and COPD), impaired quality of life (OAD combined, bronchiectasis and severe asthma) and limitation from dyspnoea (OAD combined, bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD) (p=<0.05) (figure 4). The proportion of females, body mass index and HADS total or HADS anxiety were not significantly different between the quadrants for any of the OAD groups.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Clinical characteristics per “can do, do do” quadrant per obstructive airway disease (OAD) group. a) Post-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % predicted. b) Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) grade. c) St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. d) Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score. *: p<0.05 compared to “can do, do do”. #: p<0.05 compared to “can do, don't do”; : p<0.05 compared to “can't do, do do”.

Sedentary behaviour and LPA per quadrant for each group

Sedentary time and LPA differences in each group, and per quadrant, are summarised in table 2. For the control group, sedentary time and LPA were not different between quadrants. For the OAD combined group and the bronchiectasis and COPD groups, participants in the “can't do, don't do” quadrant spent significantly more time in sedentary behaviour compared with the “can do, do do” quadrant (p<0.05) (figure 5). People in the “can't do, don't do” and the “can do, don't do” quadrants also spent less time in LPA compared with the “can do, do do” quadrant, for the OAD combined group and within each OAD group (p<0.05) (figure 5).

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Amount of time spent in different movement behaviours per “can do, do do” quadrant per group. a) Control. b) Bronchiectasis. c) Severe asthma. d) COPD. *: p<0.05 compared to “can do, do do”. #: p<0.05 compared to “can't do, do do”. LPA: light-intensity physical activity; MVPA: moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity.

Discussion

We have applied the “can do, do do” quadrant concept to people with and without different OADs and explored the differences in clinical characteristics and movement behaviours according to quadrant allocation. As expected, a higher proportion of people living with different OAD had low physical capacity and reduced physical activity participation compared with people without OAD. Low physical capacity cooccurred with physical inactivity (can't do, don't do) for 30% of people with bronchiectasis, 25% of people with severe asthma and 59% of people with COPD. For people within this quadrant, they had more severe airflow limitation, more comorbidities, reduced health-related quality of life and greater limitations from dyspnoea, compared with people in the “can do, do do” quadrant. Movement behaviour measures were different between quadrants for the OAD groups only. Time spent participating in LPA was reduced in people in the “don't do” compared with the “do, do” quadrants. That is, people with OAD who had reduced MVPA also had low LPA. Further, people who were categorised as “can't do, don't do” spent more time sedentary compared with people who were categorised as “can do, do do”.

This study highlights the interrelationship between physical capacity and physical activity in people with OAD. Consistent with previous studies [7, 8, 14, 21], only 4–12% of the OAD population participated in the recommended amounts of physical activity when their physical capacity was impaired. That is, the “can't do, do do” quadrant was the least representative quadrant across all groups. Conversely, the “can't do, don't do” quadrant comprised approximately one third of the people with bronchiectasis or severe asthma, which is comparable to a previous study in an asthma population [8]. Alarmingly, more than 50% of people with COPD were allocated to this quadrant, which is a higher proportion than previous studies [6, 7, 14, 21]. To assess physical activity, most previous studies have used steps per day [6–8, 14, 21]. However, using a measure of physical activity intensity (MVPA) instead of volume (steps per day) has been shown to be stronger at discriminating between quadrants in a recent “can do, do do” study in community-dwelling older adults [22]. Therefore, it is possible that the discrepancy between our COPD population and previous studies is due to the physical activity measure we used MVPA to allocate people to “do, do” versus “don't do”. Global, international, and national guidelines recommend that people engage in a certain amount of MVPA to maintain or improve health and wellbeing outcomes [23, 24]. It is therefore important to identify people with OAD who are inactive (i.e. “can't do”) in line with these guidelines. For people with OAD who are inactive and have impaired physical capacity, aerobic and resistance training has been shown to effectively increase physical capacity and, therefore, should be recommended to people who “can't do” to build their capability to participate in MVPA [25–28]. Additionally, using absolute cut-offs, such as >3.0 metabolic equivalents of task for MVPA is also likely contributing to people with OAD not meeting physical activity guidelines recommendations. This method may not appropriately reflect the moderate effort required in this population with lung disease, as it does not take into consideration functional capacity. As such disease-specific physical activity guidelines are needed for people with OAD.

Our analysis identified that people with bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD who “can't do, and don't do” have more severe airflow limitation, more comorbidities and are limited by dyspnoea. Whilst this finding is novel for severe asthma and bronchiectasis it is consistent with previous COPD literature [6, 7, 14, 21]. It is expected that participants who have impaired physical capacity and are not physically active have worse clinical outcomes. The presence of clinical outcomes such as dyspnoea and comorbidities may be contributing to inactivity as part of a vicious cycle of deconditioning [29]. People who “can't do, don't do” may require a different approach that addresses other treatable traits that are impacting their ability to be active and maintain physical capacity. Treatable traits is a precision-medicine model of care that involves identifying traits using a multidimensional assessment in an individual and creating a personalised management strategy that targets these traits [10]. This approach to patient care has been shown to be effective in people with OAD [10, 30] and treatable traits has been proposed to optimise pulmonary rehabilitation outcomes. Our study suggests that people who “can't do, don't do” may benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation most, where additional traits can be targeted to improve physical capacity and physical inactivity [31].

A novel aspect of this study is reporting and comparing LPA and sedentary time in each quadrant across each group. There is an increasing amount of evidence to support the health benefits of reducing time spent in prolonged sedentary behaviour, independent of time spent in MVPA [32]. In the general population, prolonged sedentary behaviour has shown to be associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease and diabetes [33–35]. Emerging evidence in OAD also indicates that sedentary behaviour is associated with exacerbations, impaired health related quality of life and reduced exercise capacity [36–39]. In this study, time spent in sedentary behaviour per day was high across all quadrants in all OAD groups, the lowest amount being 10 h and 36 min (“can do, do do” in COPD). However, people in the “can't do, don't do” quadrant spent more time in sedentary behaviour compared with the other quadrants. People in the “don't do” quadrants also spent less time in LPA compared with those in the “do, do” quadrants, across the OAD groups. For people who are inactive, and particularly for those who have impaired physical capacity, re-allocation of time from sedentary to LPA may be an important strategy to improve health outcomes [9]. This is likely a more achievable step for people with OAD who “don't do” but perhaps specifically for people who “can't do, don't do”, as the amount of physical capacity needed to participate in LPA is less than MVPA.

Importantly, preserved physical capacity did not fully explain why some people with OAD do not engage in enough physical activity, replicating findings from previous studies [6–8, 14, 21]. Approximately one third of participants with bronchiectasis, severe asthma or COPD do not meet physical activity recommendations, despite having preserved physical capacity. Therefore, even if physical capacity is improved or retained, people with OAD may not participate in physical activity for other reasons. This may relate to the level of motivation, knowledge, skills and confidence that is required for people to adopt effective strategies, also known as patient activation [40]. Psychosocial barriers are also likely, including fear of symptom exacerbation, lack of self-efficacy and support to participate in physical activity [41–43]. In our study, depression symptom scores were highest in the “can't do, don't do” quadrant which further supports the importance of considering psychological symptoms when addressing physical inactivity in people with OAD. Implementing behaviour change strategies such as goal setting and behaviour feedback from wearable activity monitors and providing education and support may enable people who “can do, don't do” to overcome some of these barriers and increase physical activity participation [44, 45]. For people with OAD who “can't do, don't do”, combining strategies that improve their physical capacity and targets behaviour change may be needed [27, 46, 47].

As a strength, our study included people with different airway diseases including bronchiectasis, severe asthma and COPD, in addition to a control group. This enabled us to compare quadrant allocations between different OAD groups. Moreover, the “can do, do do’ concept has not previously been explored in people with severe asthma or bronchiectasis. This study, therefore, provides novel insights for the development of movement behaviour interventions in these patient groups. Another strength of our study was the use of a tri-axial accelerometer to measure LPA and sedentary time, in addition to MVPA. Time spent in sedentary behaviour or LPA has not been reported in previous “can do, do do” studies and our findings identify the importance of targeting different types of movement behaviour. We acknowledge that the 6MWT is not an incremental exercise test and therefore may not reflect maximal exercise capacity; however, the 6MWT was conducted according to technical standard which can elicit a peak oxygen uptake [12]. We also acknowledge that our method of calculating minutes of MVPA per week (average minutes of MVPA per day of available wear time extrapolated to estimate minutes of MVPA per day for 7 days) does not consider that some participants data were not balanced across weekdays and weekend days. Given that this method does not take into consideration that some participants may vary their time use substantially across the week (e.g. only active on weekend days), this may have resulted in under- or over-estimation of participants true MVPA per week. However, for participants in our study, there were no substantial differences in MVPA participation across different days of the week (e.g. 23 min per day on Monday versus 24 min·day−1 on Saturday). Our data are cross-sectional and the future impact of allocation to each quadrant cannot be derived.

Conclusion

This study highlights that many people with OAD, particularly COPD, may not be meeting physical activity recommendations because they do not have the physical capacity to participate in MVPA. Greater disease severity (airflow limitation), breathlessness and comorbidity were associated with the “can't do, don't do” quadrant. Targeting these treatable traits is likely important when designing physical activity interventions in people with OAD, particularly for people who have impaired physical capacity and physical activity. It is also important to consider the potential benefits of addressing LPA and sedentary behaviour as there were suboptimal levels of these movement behaviours across different quadrants. Compared with increasing time spent in MVPA, re-allocating time spent sedentary to LPA may be a more feasible approach, particularly for the 45% of people with OAD who have impaired physical capacity. Interpretation of our findings have informed the different approaches needed for people with OAD to improve their physical activity when allocated to the different quadrants of the “can do, do do” concept. Future research is needed to investigate if tailoring intervention approaches based on quadrants allocation is effective in people with OAD.

Footnotes

Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

This article has an editorial commentary: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00305-2024

Ethics statement: Ethics approval was granted for all studies by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee.

Conflict of interest: P.D. Urroz Guerrero declares no conflict of interest. H. Lewthwaite reports consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from HMRI and Diabetes Australia, speaking fees from Lung Foundation Australia, TSANZ, Exercise and Sports Science Australia, and European Respiratory Society, and shares in 4DMedical, outside the submitted work. P.G. Gibson reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, grants from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. V.L. Clark declares no conflict of interest. Laura Cordova-Rivera declares no conflict of interest. V.M. McDonald reports speaker and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelhiem, and other grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Cyclomedica, outside the submitted work.

Support statement: This research was supported by a University of Newcastle Postgraduate Scholarship, a John Hunter Hospital Charitable Trust grant and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. The funder was not involved in data collection, analysis, or interpretation; trial design; patient recruitment; or any aspect pertinent to the study. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

References

  • 1.Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease . Global Strategy for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of COPD. Date last accessed: 22 May 2023. Date last updated: 2023. https://goldcopd.org/2023-gold-report-2/
  • 2.Chang AB, Bell SC, Byrnes CA, et al. Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) position statement on chronic suppurative lung disease and bronchiectasis in children, adolescents and adults in Australia and New Zealand. Respirology 2023; 28: 339–349. doi: 10.1111/resp.14479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Global Initiative for Asthma . 2023 GINA report, global strategy for asthma management and prevention. Date last accessed: 1 June 2023. Date last updated: 10 July 2023. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/
  • 4.Cordova-Rivera L, Gibson PG, Gardiner PA, et al. Physical activity associates with disease characteristics of severe asthma, bronchiectasis and COPD. Respirology 2019; 24: 352–360. doi: 10.1111/resp.13428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet 2012; 380: 258–271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koolen EH, van Hees HW, van Lummel RC, et al. “Can do” versus “do do”: a novel concept to better understand physical functioning in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Clin Med 2019; 8: 20190311. doi: 10.3390/jcm8030340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Carl J, Schultz K, Janssens T, et al. The “can do, do do” concept in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an exploration of psychological mechanisms. Respir Res 2021; 22: 260. doi: 10.1186/s12931-021-01854-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Janssen SMJ, Spruit MA, Antons JC, et al. “Can do” versus “do do” in patients with asthma at first referral to a pulmonologist. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9: 1278–1284. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dogra S, Copeland JL, Altenburg TM, et al. Start with reducing sedentary behavior: a stepwise approach to physical activity counseling in clinical practice. Patient Educ Couns 2022; 102: 1353–1361. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McDonald VM, Clark VL, Cordova-Rivera L, et al. Targeting treatable traits in severe asthma: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901509. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01509-2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chung KF, Wenzel SE, Brozek JL, et al. International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 343–373. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00202013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, et al. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1428–1446. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00150314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jenkins S, Cecins N, Camarri B, et al. Regression equations to predict 6-minute walk distance in middle-aged and elderly adults. Physiother Theory Pract 2009; 25: 516–522. doi: 10.3109/09593980802664711 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sievi NA, Brack T, Brutsche MH, et al. “Can do, don't do” are not the lazy ones: a longitudinal study on physical functioning in patients with COPD. Respir Res 2020; 21: 27. doi: 10.1186/s12931-020-1290-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Matthews CE, Hagströmer M, Pober DM, et al. Best practices for using physical activity monitors in population-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S68–S76. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399e5b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 777–781. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mahler DA, Wells CK. Evaluation of clinical methods for rating dyspnea. Chest 1988; 93: 580–586. doi: 10.1378/chest.93.3.580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM, et al. A self-complete measure of health status for chronic airflow limitation. The St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992; 145: 1321–1327. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/145.6.1321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Vaes AW, Spruit MA, Koolen EH, et al. “Can do, do do” quadrants and 6-year all-cause mortality in patients with COPD. Chest 2022; 161: 1494–1504. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.12.657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Adams M, Carrascosa L, Jansen C-P, et al. “Can do” vs. “do do” in older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of sensor-derived physical activity patterns. Sensors 2023; 23: 1879. doi: 10.3390/s23041879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Australian Government . Australia's physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for adults. Date last accessed: 14 January 2019. Date last updated: 10 May 2021. www.health.gov.au/health-topics/physical-activity-and-exercise/physical-activity-and-exercise-guidelines-for-all-australians/for-adults-18-to-64-years
  • 24.World Health Organization . WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2020. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Carson KV, Chandratilleke MG, Picot J, et al. Physical training for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 9: CD001116. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001116.pub4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lee AL, Gordon CS, Osadnik CR. Exercise training for bronchiectasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 4: CD013110. doi: 10.1002/14651858.Cd013110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015: Cd003793. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ward TJC, Plumptre CD, Dolmage TE, et al. Change in VʹO2 peak in response to aerobic exercise training and the relationship with exercise prescription in people with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2020; 158: 131–144. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.01.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Maria AR, Gerben Ter R, Anne-Elie C, et al. The dyspnoea–inactivity vicious circle in COPD: development and external validation of a conceptual model. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800079. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00079-2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McDonald VM, Higgins I, Wood LG, et al. Multidimensional assessment and tailored interventions for COPD: respiratory utopia or common sense? Thorax 2013; 68: 691. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Holland AE, Wageck B, Hoffman M, et al. Does pulmonary rehabilitation address treatable traits? A systematic review. Eur Respir Rev 2022; 31: 220042. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0042-2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Owen N, Healy GN, Matthews CE, et al. Too much sitting: the population health science of sedentary behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2010; 38: 105–113. doi: 10.1097/JES.0b013e3181e373a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bellettiere J, Winkler EAH, Chastin SFM, et al. Associations of sitting accumulation patterns with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers in Australian adults. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0180119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, et al. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 123–132. doi: 10.7326/m14-1651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Edwardson CL, Gorely T, Davies MJ, et al. Association of sedentary behaviour with metabolic syndrome: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012; 7: e34916. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.McNamara RJ, McKeough ZJ, McKenzie DK, et al. Physical comorbidities affect physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective cohort study. Respirology 2014; 19: 866–872. doi: 10.1111/resp.12325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cordova-Rivera L, Gardiner PA, Gibson PG, et al. Sedentary time in people with obstructive airway diseases. Respir Med 2021; 181: 106367. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dogra S, Good J, Buman MP, et al. Physical activity and sedentary time are related to clinically relevant health outcomes among adults with obstructive lung disease. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18: 98. doi: 10.1186/s12890-018-0659-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Alcaraz-Serrano V, Gimeno-Santos E, Scioscia G, et al. Association between physical activity and risk of hospitalisation in bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1902138. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02138-2019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Peters JB, Antons JC, Koolen EH, et al. Patient activation is a treatable trait in patients with chronic airway diseases: an observational study. Front Psychol 2022; 13: 947402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mancuso CA, Sayles W, Robbins L, et al. Barriers and facilitators to healthy physical activity in asthma patients. J Asthma 2006; 43: 137–143. doi: 10.1080/02770900500498584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Papp ME, Berg C, Lindfors P, et al. Experiences of physical activity and exercise among women with obstructive pulmonary disease. Physiother Theory Pract 2023; 39: 1681–1691. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2022.2045658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Royle H, Kelly C. “The likes of me running and walking? No chance”: exploring the perceptions of adult patients with bronchiectasis towards exercise. Chronic Illn 2023; 19: 157–171. doi: 10.1177/17423953221108223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Reilly C, Sails J, Stavropoulos-Kalinoglou A, et al. Physical activity promotion interventions in chronic airways disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev 2023; 32: 220109. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0109-2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tyson L, Hardeman W, Marquette M, et al. A systematic review of the characteristics of interventions that promote physical activity in adults with asthma. J Health Psychol 2022; 27: 2777–2796. doi: 10.1177/13591053211059386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lee AL, Hill CJ, McDonald CF, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 774–782. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Osadnik CR, Gleeson C, McDonald VM, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care for adults with asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 8: CD013485. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013485.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ERJ Open Research are provided here courtesy of European Respiratory Society

RESOURCES