Abstract
This study aimed to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of land-based and water-based pulmonary rehabilitation on 6-min walk distance among people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using a benefit-harm trade-off method, people with COPD who had completed two baseline 6-min walk tests at the commencement of outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation were presented with two scenarios: 8 weeks of land-based and 8 weeks of water-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Participants were guided through an iterative process allowing them to progressively refine their estimates of the smallest improvement due to each form of rehabilitation that would outweigh the associated costs, risks and inconvenience presented in the scenario. 100 people with COPD participated (mean±sd age 72±9 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 54±16% predicted and baseline 6-min walk distance 377±101 m). For land-based pulmonary rehabilitation, the median smallest worthwhile effect was 20 m (95% CI 15-37 m). For water-based pulmonary rehabilitation, the median smallest worthwhile effect was 26 m (95% CI 15-33 m). These estimates did not differ significantly (p=0.10). People with COPD typically perceive that pulmonary rehabilitation would be worthwhile if it increased the 6-min walk distance by about 6%. The smallest worthwhile effects of land- and water-based pulmonary rehabilitation were similar.