TOPLINE:

A Virtual Physiotherapy Group Intervention for Chronic Cough (ViP-Cough) achieved 80% uptake, with patients who received this intervention showing significant reductions in cough severity, cough frequency, and impact of cough on daily life.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study analyzing 194 patients with chronic cough (median age, 61 years; 78.86% women) to assess the uptake and clinical benefits of novel ViP-Cough.
• The intervention consisted of a single 1-hour group therapy session delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams by specialized respiratory physiotherapists to a maximum of 12 patients per session, focusing on education, cough control strategies, and breathing pattern retraining.
• All patients underwent numerical rating scale-based assessments at baseline and 4 weeks post-intervention (score range, 0-10) to determine cough severity, cough frequency, and impact of cough on daily activities (higher scores indicated worse outcomes) and confidence in self-management of cough (higher scores indicated greater confidence).

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 80% of patients opted for the intervention, indicating high acceptability.
• Patients who received the intervention had significant reductions in cough severity (mean difference [MD], -1.26; 95% CI, -0.82 to -1.70), cough frequency (MD, -1.19; 95% CI, -0.79 to -1.60), and impact of cough on daily life (MD, -1.16; 95% CI, -0.23 to -1.61).
• Post-intervention, patients’ confidence in self-management of cough increased substantially (MD, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.64 to 2.68).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of patient choice in how individuals engage with and receive healthcare. For some, group therapy and virtual treatment options may not be appropriate or preferential. This insight is crucial for clinical service planning, as it underlines the need to ensure that clinical service capacity can meet the demand for varying models of care delivery such as group therapy, one-to-one virtual appointments, and one-to-one face-to-face consultations,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charles C. Reilly, PhD, King’s College Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, England. It was published online on January 22, 2026, in ERJ Open Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective and uncontrolled design limited the ability to establish causal inferences, and the reliance on pragmatic patient‑reported numerical rating scales instead of validated or objective measures weakened the robustness of the outcomes. In most cases, the same clinician assessed, delivered the intervention, and completed follow-up, which may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported for this study. Two authors reported receiving investigator-initiated research grants and consultancy fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.