PTCohortPhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026

WHODAS 2.0 to Assess Disability in the Rehabilitation of Individuals With Chronic Respiratory Conditions: Responsiveness and Interpretability.

Chayenne Chylld César Lopes, Vanessa Garcia de Lima, Magno F Formiga and 1 others

PMID 41653070

WHAT IT FOUND

The WHODAS 2.0 disability questionnaire detected improvement in 33 people with chronic respiratory conditions after an eight-week supervised exercise programme, with scores falling from 44.98 to 35.49.

A drop of at least 6.22 points may be the threshold for a meaningful change.

Key findings

01Disability on the WHODAS 2.0 summary score improved after the exercise-based rehabilitation programme, falling from 44.98 to 35.49, a mean change of −9.49 (95% CI −13.90 to −5.08).

02The improvement was larger in the people who also improved on the SGRQ by at least its 4-point threshold (−12.7 versus −1.0, p = 0.02).

03Estimates of the smallest change patients would notice ranged from −6.22 to −5.02 on the WHODAS 2.0 summary score.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 33 people took part, all from one rehabilitation unit in Brazil, and most had COPD, so the results may not hold for other respiratory conditions or other settings. There was no control group. People were measured before and after the same programme, so the improvement could come from the programme, from getting better anyway, or from being assessed twice. The seven people who dropped out or could not follow the programme were left out of the analysis, which tends to make the results look better than they are. The 12-item version of WHODAS 2.0 gives only one overall score, so it cannot show which areas of life improved, such as mobility versus self-care or participation. Everyone had to be able to walk and take part in exercise training to join, so the findings do not apply to people who are housebound or acutely unwell. The correlation between the change in WHODAS score and the change in SGRQ score was only fair, so the two questionnaires are not measuring quite the same thing. The estimate of the smallest noticeable change comes from a small sample, and the confidence interval around the change reported by those who felt better crosses zero.

Declared interests

The research received no specific grant from public, commercial or not-for-profit funders. One author held a Master of Science scholarship from the Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP) and from CAPES. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. There is no statement that a funder designed the study, analysed the data or wrote the manuscript.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the fall in disability scores as proof that this exercise programme works. There was no control group, so the improvement may reflect the programme, natural recovery or simply being assessed twice, and the people who dropped out or could not keep up were excluded from the analysis. The study was testing whether the WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire can detect change, and that is all it shows.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →