Comparison of the Efficacy of Laughter Therapy and Breathing Exercises on Pulmonary Function among Smokers

Background: Globally, smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of death. Aerobic exercise has been proven to cleanse the body of toxins, increase lung capacity. Laughter therapy is a modified form of breathing exercise, which gives workout to the muscles of respiration. It is helpful in improving the oxygen saturation in the body and improves the pulmonary function.

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of laughter therapy and breathing exercises on pulmonary function being among smokers.

Material and Methods: Quantitative approach and quasi experimental multiple intervention design was adopted for the study. The setting of the study was Coimbatore. Male smokers who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were considered as the population. The study consists of 300 samples, out of which 100 in control group, 100 in breathing exercises group, and 100 in laughter therapy group. Non-probability purposive sampling was adopted. Male smokers alone between the age group of 30 - 60 years were included. In demographic data age, duration, form of smoking, average number of beedi/cigarettes or both per day, and nature of activity were collected. To assess pulmonary function of smokers, 4 pulmonary parameters namely FVC, FEV1, PEFR and FEF25-75% were measured in liter with the help of the spirometer (SpiroBank_G). Laughter therapy and breathing exercises were group process; each group consists of 10-15 samples. The interventions were given weekly 6 days (Monday- Saturday) about 30 - 40 minutes in the evening for the period of 6 weeks. In control group no intervention was given and no control on their original activity level. Once again the pulmonary function was assessed after six weeks.

Results: The calculated paired 't' value for all the four pulmonary parameters (FVC, FEV1, PEFR and FEF25-75%) in control, breathing exercises and laughter therapy were significant at 0.01 level, except for PEFR in control group. Even in control group the pre-post difference for FVC, FEV1, and FEF25-75% was significant at 0.01 level. It was because of significant reduction in post-test pulmonary parameters compared to pre- test score. The calculated 'F' values for post-test FVC (4.7) was significant at 0.01 level; FEV1 (4.47), and PEFR (4.38) were significant at 0.05 level, and FEF25-75% (0.69) was not significant. Hence there was a significant difference in the pulmonary parameters such as FVC, FEV1, PEFR (P<0.01), between groups. So the post- hoc test was performed. The Post -hoc test revealed that the control group showed significant difference with breathing exercises and laughter therapy in the three pulmonary parameters (FVC, FEV1, and PEFR). There was no significant difference in the pulmonary parameter FEF25-75% among control, breathing exercises and Laughter therapy group. The results of the study revealed that the breathing exercises and laughter therapy were equally effective in improving pulmonary parameters (FVC, FEV1, and PEFR), except FEF25-75% and there was no significant difference between breathing exercises and laughter therapy in all four pulmonary parameters. All four pre-test pulmonary parameters (FVC, FEV1, PEFR and FEF25-75%) were significantly associated with age, duration and form of smoking of smokers (P<0.01).

Conclusion: Both laughter therapy and breathing exercises were equally effective in improving pulmonary function of smokers. There was no significant difference between laughter therapy and breathing exercises.