@article {Stone00509-2020, author = {Philip W. Stone and Katherine C. Hickman and Michael C. Steiner and C. Michael Roberts and Jennifer K. Quint and Sally J. Singh}, title = {Predictors of Pulmonary Rehabilitation Completion in the UK}, elocation-id = {00509-2020}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1183/23120541.00509-2020}, publisher = {European Respiratory Society}, abstract = {Aim Determine characteristics of people with COPD associated with completion of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).Methods Cross-sectional analysis of 7060 people with COPD enrolled in PR between 03/01/2017 and 31/03/2017. Data were from a UK national audit of COPD care. Factors associated with PR completion were determined using mixed-effects logistic regression with a random intercept for PR service. Factors chosen for assessment based on clinical judgement and data availability were: age, gender, country, SES, Body Mass Index (BMI), referral location, programme type, start within 90 days, smoking status, oxygen therapy, GOLD stage, MRC grade, any exercise test, and any health status questionnaire.Results 4635 (66\%) people with COPD completed a PR programme. People that were 60 years or older, resident in Wales, referred within 90 days, an ex- or never smoker, received an exercise test, or received a health status questionnaire had significantly greater odds of completing PR. People that were in the most deprived quintile, underweight or very severely obese, enrolled in a rolling rather than a cohort programme, had a higher GOLD stage, and had a higher MRC grade had significantly lower odds of completing PR.Conclusion People with COPD were more likely to complete PR when best-practice guidelines were followed. People with more severe COPD symptoms and those enrolled in rolling rather than cohort programmes were less likely to complete PR. Referring people with COPD in the earlier stages of disease, ensuring programmes follow best-practice guidelines, and favouring cohort over rolling programmes could improve rates of PR completion.FootnotesThis manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interest: Dr. Hickman has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: M.C. Steiner reports advisory board fees from GSK and nonfinancial support for travel to an international conference from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work.Conflict of interest: C.M. Roberts reports personal fees~from AstraZeneca and Pfizer for nonpromotional educational seminars for primary care staff on the relevance of audit findings, outside the submitted work.Conflict of interest: J.K. Quint reports that she is the analysis lead for the NACAP and her university receives funding for that from the Royal College of Physicians; and grants and personal fees from AZ, Bayer, BI, Chiesi and GSK, and grants from the MRC and The Health Foundation, outside the submitted work.Conflict of interest: Dr. SINGH has nothing to disclose.}, URL = {https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/10/29/23120541.00509-2020}, eprint = {https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/10/29/23120541.00509-2020.full.pdf}, journal = {ERJ Open Research} }