Background: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) is debated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. This study aimed to determine whether there is a difference in predictors of clinically significant improvement between the traditional (value of 4) and newly proposed MCID SGRQ (value of 7) after climatic rehabilitation treatment. Climatic rehabilitation treatment consists of two main parts: climatotherapy, which typically involves the controlled exposure of individuals to natural environmental elements, and climatic rehabilitation, which includes other therapeutic factors such as physical activities as well as educating the patient to change their lifestyle. Methods: This study included 90 consecutive patients diagnosed with COPD who underwent structured complex pulmonary rehabilitation in High Tatras, part of the Carpathian Mountains. The examination before and after treatment included spirometry, QoL assessment using the SGRQ, 6 min walk test (6-MWT), and the Borg, Beck and Zung scale. Results: Patients showed statistically significant improvement after the intervention in FEV1, FEV1/FVC, 6-MWT, (p < 0.001), anxiety scores, depression, and improvement in dyspnoea both before and after the 6-MWT (p < 0.001). For both MCID for SGRQ levels 4 and 7, we confirmed the same predictors of clinical improvement for bronchial obstruction grade (spirometry) and exercise capacity (6-MWT), for quality of life in activity score and total score. Conclusion. The results suggest that both the proposed MCID for SGRQ values could be sufficient to assess the clinical significance of the achieved change in health status when assessing the need for pulmonary rehabilitation comprising climatotherapy in patients with COPD.

Background and Objectives: Post-COVID-19 condition (PCC, long COVID) is associated with persistent symptoms and marked reductions in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but real-world data on rehabilitation and everyday functioning remain limited. Materials and Methods: In a cross-sectional online survey conducted between 15 April and 15 May 2024, we analysed 406 adults (308 women; mean age 36.0 ± 12.1 years) with ongoing post-COVID symptoms recruited from two moderator-supervised support communities. The questionnaire included sociodemographic and clinical items, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale. Participants indicated whether they had completed any form of rehabilitation targeting post-COVID problems (yes/no). Group differences were examined using Welch’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U and χ² tests, as appropriate. Multiple linear regression models with Bonferroni correction were used to explore associations between rehabilitation status, age, sex, symptom duration and outcomes. Results: Overall, 182 respondents (44.8%) reported rehabilitation and 224 (55.2%) did not. The groups did not differ significantly in age, sex distribution, BMI, number of infections, symptom duration or hospitalisation history. Most SF-36 domains, component summaries and PCFS differed significantly between groups, with small-to-large effects favouring respondents who reported rehabilitation. The largest effect sizes were observed for Vitality and Mental Health, whereas Physical Functioning showed no clear difference. In multivariable models, older age and longer symptom duration were consistently associated with poorer HRQoL, while rehabilitation status remained a robust correlate of better scores in several SF-36 domains, both component summaries, perceived health, and lower PCFS grades after correction for multiple testing. Conclusions: Although the cross-sectional design, self-reported data and non-standardised rehabilitation exposure preclude causal inference, the findings highlight the substantial HRQoL and functional burden of long COVID and suggest that, within a symptomatic population, reported completion of rehabilitation is positively associated with multiple aspects of everyday health and functioning.

Purpose: This study aimed to analyse the experience of two participating workplaces in introducing innovative robotically assisted rehabilitation in clinical practice and influencing the quality of life of patients. Methodology/Approach: Online questionnaires were distributed to the rehabilitation staff of the two workplaces, and the Functional Independence Measurement (FIM) and Barthel index were measured before the start of rehabilitation and after the completion of rehabilitation. Results showed that the robots were highly effective, easy to use, and significant in achieving the therapeutic goal. Rehabilitation specialists who already have experience in robotic rehabilitation perceive the expected impacts with a higher efficiency of 10% compared to those who do not have experience with robot-assisted therapy. In a selected group of patients, a significant positive effect on the functional status of patients and their quality of life was demonstrated. Research Limitation/Implication: Robotically assisted rehabilitation has a positive effect on functional status and quality of life, motivating rehabilitation workers even when treating patients with severe disabilities. Originality/Value of paper: Data collected are beneficial for health, educational, and social fields.