Key result
Student-delivered cardiopulmonary rehabilitation is linked to a ~44m increase in 6-minute walk distance.
Why the study?
Access to vital pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation remains limited, and the impact of student-delivered rehabilitation on participation and clinical outcomes needed evaluation.
Does student-delivered pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation improve participation, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in individuals with chronic respiratory and cardiac disease?
Cohort (n=227)
No
Does student-delivered pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation improve participation, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in individuals with chronic respiratory and cardiac disease?
Mean Difference: 44 (95% CI 32–57)
Student-delivered pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation is a feasible, safe, and effective model that significantly improves exercise capacity and quality of life.
May expand rehabilitation access via students; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation is vital for managing chronic disease, yet access remains limited. Student-delivered rehabilitation may offer a feasible alternative; however, its impact on participation and clinical outcomes requires further evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of community-based, student-delivered pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation in terms of participation and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A pre-post cohort study was conducted at Australian Catholic University with individuals with chronic respiratory and cardiac disease. Final-year physiotherapy students delivered supervised rehabilitation programs. Participation rates, exercise capacity (6-min walk test, five-times sit-to-stand, 1-min sit-to-stand), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were assessed. Statistical significance was inferred where 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) did not include zero. RESULTS: Of 227 participants, 73 % completed the program. Attendance rates were high across exercise (88 %) and education (78 %) sessions. Significant improvements were seen in exercise capacity: 6-min walk test increased by 44m (95 % CI 32-57), five-times sit-to-stand improved by 4s (95 % CI 4-5), and 1-min sit-to-stand test repetitions increased by 5 (95 % CI 4-10). Pulmonary participants demonstrated improvement in HRQOL (mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score change: 6; 95 % CI: 3-8), as did cardiac participants (mean Short Form-36 physical component score change: 11; 95 % CI: 5-17). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Student-delivered rehabilitation is feasible, safe, and associated with high participation and significant gains in exercise capacity and HRQOL. Supervision by qualified physiotherapists ensured quality and safety. While economic analysis was not conducted, the model may offer cost-effective benefits and warrants further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hall et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Chronic respiratory and cardiac disease (n=227). Student-delivered pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation vs. Pre-intervention baseline was evaluated on 6-min walk test (MD 44, 95% CI 32-57). Student-delivered pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved exercise capacity, increasing the 6-min walk test distance by 44m (95% CI 32-57).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: