A feasibility pragmatic clinical trial of a primary care network exercise and education program for people with COPD

Table 3 Comparing PCN and traditional PR programs

	PCN		Traditional PR		Difference between samples
	N	Mean (SD)	N	Mean (SD)	ρ value
Age, years	23	64.57 (9.49)	311	65.37 (11.16)	.735
Sex, % female	23	69.57	311	48.1*	.047
BMI, kg/m²	19	34.56 (8.20)	311	29.77 (7.63)*	.009
Pack years smoking, years	21	45.76 (27.97)	248	40.46 (42.57)	.573
Currently smoking, %	23	26.10	302	18.2	.351
mMRC Dyspnea, 0–4	22	1.77 (1.11)	292	2.99 (.98)*	.000
FEV1 % predicted	19	67.89 (20.18)	293	60.74 (24.57)	.215
FEV1/FVC	19	58.89 (13.57)	293	53.86 (16.62)	.197
6MWT, m	23	396 (100)	284	371 (116)	.325
CAT total score, 1–40	23	18.58 (5.91)	295	19.52 (7.58)	.563
Steps per day	19	3646 (2566)	232	4596 (3184)	.206
Self-efficacy for managing breathlessness	22	49.91 ± 17.46	238	60.83 (28.26)	.076

BMI body mass index, mMRC modified medical research council, FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second, FVC forced vital capacity, 6MWT six-minute walk test, CAT COPD Assessment Test
*Significant difference between PCN and traditional PR based on p < .05

ISSN: 2055-5784