Search

This study investigated the influence of two different devices with lower torso sports training in patients with asthma. Patients with asthma (n = 300) aged 55-60 years with FEV 1 / FVC ratio < 65 % , who were repeatedly admitted to a pulmonary rehabilitation centre, participated. Patients were evaluated and randomized into two groups (experimental group 1; EXP-1, n = 150 , who applied a conventional threshold loading device, and experimental group 2; EXP-2, n = 150 , who used an innovative respiratory training device). Patients were included only if they met the global criteria for asthma. The experimental intervention period lasted 10 weeks with 3 weekly training sessions lasting 30-40 min. The maximal inspiratory pressure (PI, max), pulmonary function test, baseline dyspnoea index (BDI), oxygen saturation, and 6 min walking test (6MWT) performance were all measured at baseline and postintervention. Also, an assessment of the 1 min repeated exercise performance (leg extension and leg press) was performed. Moreover, St. George Respiratory Questionnaire was used to quantify the quality of life (SGRQ). Statistical analysis displayed significant favourable effects on 6MWT, leg press, and FRV1, for patients using both devices (EXP-1 and EXP-2, respectively) with lower torso athletic training. The other variables, weight SPO2 and SGRO, also showed no significant change in neither EXP-1 nor EXP-2. Thus, the new respiratory training device (EXP-2) appeared to be as effective as the conventional threshold loading device (EXP-1). In conclusion, our findings demonstrated beneficial effects of combining respiratory training with athletic training in asthma patients. Additionally, the validity of a unique respiratory training device for asthma patients was confirmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the development of a profiling system to specify the needs of hearing-aid candidates. As a basis for the profile of compensation needs, we used a slightly modified version of the Amsterdam Inventory of Disability and Handicap, combined with the well-known Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI). The first questionnaire results in scores for six audiological dimensions: detection, speech in quiet, speech in noise, localization, focus or discrimination, and noise tolerance. The goal of this study was to determine whether the six dimensions derived from the disability questionnaire are appropriate to also categorize individual COSI targets. The results show a good agreement between eight audiologists in the categorization of COSI goals along the six dimensions. The results per dimension show that the dimension focus or discrimination can be regarded as superfluous. Possible additional dimensions were tinnitus and listening effort. The results indicate that it is possible to translate individual user needs (administered using COSI) into more general dimensions derived from a disability questionnaire. This allows to summarize the compensation needs for individual patients in a profile of general dimensions, based on the degree of disability and the individual user needs. This profile can be used as a starting point in hearing aid selection. This approach also offers a well-structured method for the evaluation of the postfitting results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ) has been validated and proved useful in assessing therapies for pulmonary diseases. We translated the CRQ into a Taiwan (Mandarin Chinese) version and surveyed its validity and reliability. Methods: The CRQ includes 20 items divided into four domains: dyspnea, fatigue, emotional function, and mastery. We followed a forward-back translation procedure to create the Taiwan version. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Participants underwent tests including the CRQ, the medical outcomes study short form (SF-36), the St. George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ), lung function tests (LFTs), and a graded exercise test (GET). We used Cronbach's alpha to evaluate the internal consistency of the CRQ, intraclass coefficient for test-retest reliability, and Spearman's correlation for validity. Results: Thirty-six men and 4 women (mean age 67.9 ± 9.9 years) were recruited. Evidence of good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and construct validity of the CRQ was shown. Spearman's correlation showed moderate-to-strong correlation between the CRQ scores and scores of the SGRQ, subscales of the SF-36, and the results of LFTs and GET. Conclusions: The Taiwan version of the CRQ shows good validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is lack of a systematic approach concerning how to select an adequate hearing aid and how to evaluate its efficacy with respect to the personal needs of rehabilitation. The goal of this study was to examine the applicability and added value of two widely used self-reporting questionnaires in relation to the evaluation of hearing aid fitting. We analyzed responses, pre- and postfitting, from 1,319 subjects who completed the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and a slightly adapted version of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap (in Dutch: AVAB). Most COSI responses were at or near the maximum possible score. Results show a close relation between COSI's degree of change and final ability (Spearman's rho = 0.71). Both AVAB and COSI showed a significant effect of hearing aid experience, but—in contrast to AVAB—COSI did not show a significant effect of the degree of hearing loss. In addition, a Friedman test showed significant differences between six dimensions of auditory functioning for both AVAB and COSI, although post hoc analysis revealed that for COSI, the dimension speech in quiet explained most variation between dimensions. In conclusion, the effects of hearing loss were more salient in AVAB, while both AVAB and COSI showed differences regarding hearing aid experience. Combining the advantages of both methods results in a detailed evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation. Our results therefore suggest that both methods should be used in a complementary manner, rather than separately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]