Factor analysis of quality of life, dyspnea, and physiologic variables in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease before and after rehabilitation

Citation
D. Fuchs-climent et al., Factor analysis of quality of life, dyspnea, and physiologic variables in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease before and after rehabilitation, AM J PHYS M, 80(2), 2001, pp. 113-120
Citations number
40
Categorie Soggetti
Ortopedics, Rehabilitation & Sport Medicine
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION
ISSN journal
08949115 → ACNP
Volume
80
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
113 - 120
Database
ISI
SICI code
0894-9115(200102)80:2<113:FAOQOL>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
Objective: To identify the relationships between quality of life (QOL) and the clinical state using factor analysis pre- and postrehabilitation. Patie nts with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffer from a signifi cant physiologic impairment associated with an altered QOL. Comprehensive r ehabilitative programs, including exercise training, have beneficial effect s on exercise tolerance and QOL for these patients. Design: Factor analysis (n = 6) was conducted using the data of 32 patients with COPD. Patients had been evaluated for QOL using the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), spirometric values, dyspnea, and the variables assessed by an incremental exercise test at three levels of activity. All measurements were obtained pre- and postrehabilitation. Results: Factor analysis showed that the following two factors characterize the pathophysiologic condition of patients with COPD: (1) the specific car diorespiratory responses to incremental exercise test and the spirometric v alues; and (2) the QOL results. The factor analysis results differed with t he testing time (pre, post) and the level of activity. Conclusions: QOL, as evaluated by a generic questionnaire and the clinical state of patients with COPD, was independent; this independence characteriz ed the pathophysiologic condition of our patients. Our results reinforce th e usefulness of different types of evaluation, especially pre- and postreha bilitation, because they reflect independent benefits used to understand th e success and follow-up of rehabilitative programs.