ABSTRACT Aim To combine qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the feasibility, participant satisfaction and effectiveness of a hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation programme following hospital discharge for an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design Convergent parallel mixed method study nested in a larger ongoing prospective study; this report includes a subset of 21 participants who complete the qualitative and quantitative assessments between May 2023 and January 2024. Methods Semi structured interviews using open‐ended questions were conducted and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Participants were interviewed after completing an 8‐week hybrid home‐based rehabilitation programme, including four face‐to‐face and four remote sessions. Quantitative assessments—covering disease impact, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and exercise tolerance—were conducted at the beginning and end of the intervention in the same participants who took part in the interviews, and a 10‐item satisfaction questionnaire was also completed after the programme. Data Sources May 2023 to January 2024. Reporting Method GRAMMS checklist was followed. Results 21 people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11 females; mean age 62 ± 7 years; mean FEV 1 30% ± 10% of predicted) were interviewed. Five major themes were identified: (i) accessibility and adaptation to individual needs; (ii) confidence in the transdisciplinary care manager model, confirmed by high satisfaction score (95/100); (iii) integration of informal carers; (iv) perceived benefits supporting maintenance of health behaviour, consistent with the statistically and clinically significant improvements observed across all quantitative outcomes; and (v) hybrid programme challenges (technical issues and preference for face‐to‐face visits). Conclusion The hybrid programme resulted in significant improvements in physical and psychological outcomes, and participants reported high levels of satisfaction. Qualitative findings highlighted the value of home‐based delivery, supervision by a single care manager, informal carer involvement and emotional support in shaping feasibility and satisfaction. However, challenges related to remote sessions indicate that telerehabilitation may not be suitable for all patients and should not be used as a standalone PR option. Relevance for Clinical Practice Given the strong preference of participants for face‐to‐face visits over remote visits, telerehabilitation should always include a minimum of individual or group face‐to‐face supervised sessions. The balance between supervision modalities should be personalised according to participants' needs and progress.
Géphine et al. (Wed,) studied this question.