Loss of these sources on discharge from the course may negatively impact on selfefficacy, which arguably could diminish further during an exacerbation. Ongoing peer support for exercise was viewed as particularly influential in our study; a finding corroborated by research in older adults showing that exercise-focused social support promotes long-term adherence to exercise, mediated via self-efficacy (McAuley et al 2003).

Our data also support the more specific theory that maintaining physical activity self-efficacy for people with COPD is important for sustained engagement in physical activity after pulmonary rehabilitation. Various maintenance interventions have been tested in clinical trials as strategies are sought to effectively maintain pulmonary rehabilitation benefits longitudinally. Conclusions from this work so far are equivocal. Spencer and colleagues’ (2010) randomised trial demonstrated no additional Selleckchem Y 27632 benefit of once-weekly supervised maintenance over unsupervised home exercise. Interestingly, exercise capacity and quality of life were maintained one year after pulmonary rehabilitation in both strategies. Limitations of this well conducted study

are worthy of consideration. First, regular contact with the pulmonary rehabilitation physiotherapist in the unsupervised group may have unduly biased adherence to long-term exercise. Second, it is possible that the study cohort was an atypical, highlyfunctioning subgroup of people with COPD, with mean sixminute walk MEK inhibitor Carnitine dehydrogenase distances of 464 m and 527 m before and after pulmonary rehabilitation, respectively. This is substantially higher than the typical

six-minute walk distance of 388 m in people with COPD (Casanova et al 2007). Distances around 500 m have been reported for healthy age-matched controls (Casanova et al 2011). Therefore, the generalisability of the results of Spencer et al (2010) is debatable. The quantitative data showing that maintenance programmes have limited efficacy contrasts with patients’ perspectives expressed both in our study and in similar work (Lewis and Cramp, Toms and Harrison 2002, Wilson et al 2007). However, we acknowledge that our study did not include patient views concerning different modes of maintenance. Given the known health and economic benefits of regular physical activity in COPD (Garcia-Aymerich et al 2006), further research is warranted to improve our understanding of potentially cost-effective activity promotion strategies for this population. For example, a trial could examine whether referral to independent group exercise sessions in a community hall with remote access to a pulmonary rehabilitation specialist promotes greater long-term participation in physical exercise than no ongoing support. We acknowledge some limitations of our study.