Outpatient versus home monitored training. Factors affecting patient preferences
█ Original article
Ábrahám Erzsébet Judit1, Máthéné Köteles Éva2,3, Korom Andrea2,3, Vágvölgyi Anna4, Szűcs Mónika5, Rafael Beatrix1, Lengyel Csaba4,
Barnai Mária2, Kósa István1
1SZTE ÁOK, Preventív Medicina Tanszék, Szeged,
2SZTE ETSZK Fizioterápiás Tanszék, Szeged
3SZTE ÁOK, Interdiszciplináris Doktori Iskola, Szeged,
4SZTE ÁOK, Belgyógyászati Klinika, Szeged
5SZTE ÁOK, Orvosi Fizika és Orvosi Informatika Intézet, Szeged
Background: In the developed world Metabolic Syndrome affects a quarter of the population. The key to the treatment of these patients is the change of lifestyle, in particular the development of the physical activity.
Aims: To evaluate the characteristics of patients who underwent institutional as well as home-based heart rate monitored training and assessed the achieved training volume with different interventions.
Method: The study involved 77 patients, 42 men, and 35 women. The average age was 49.75+9.45 years. There were 6 patients dropped out before the intervention. The study protocol allowed to accept patient preference at the selection of training locations and devices used for monitoring. 15 patients were involved in the “A”, ambulatory training group, 33 in the “M”, chest-strap based home-monitored group, while 23 in the “O”, smartwatch based home-monitored group. After a health check, a physiotherapist individually consulted with the patients about the training forms, covering at least 3 episodes per week with a total duration of 150 minutes. The training was remote-monitored and consulted every week. Patients in the institutional group participated in institutional training at least 2 times per week.
Results: The study was completed by 15, 31 and 21 patients in the “A”, “M” and “O” groups, respectively. There were 4 patients dropped out: 2-2 patients form the “M” and “O” groups. The average age of the patients in the group “A”, “M” and “O” were 55.40+ 8.04, 48.48+8.77 and 50.00+6.93, respectively (p<0.05 for “M” and <0.01 for “O” vs. “A”). The distance of the patients’ home from the location of the institution were 3.90+2.00, 25.09+21.76 and 25.18+13.51 km, respectively (p<0.001 for “O” and “M” v.s. “A”). The documented duration of the trainings were 115.92+55.54; 125.76+99.01 and 177.80+113.98 minutes, respectively (p<0.05 for “O” vs. “A” and “M”).
Conclusion: Remote-monitored training is preferred by the Metabolic Syndrome patients of active age bracket comparing the institutional training. The older and resident patients choose typically the institutional training.