Cargando…

Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of using a new activity pacing framework to standardise healthcare professionals’ instructions of pacing, and explore whether measures of activity pacing/symptoms detected changes following treatment. DESIGN: Single-arm, repeated measures study. SETTING: One Natio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Antcliff, Deborah, Keenan, Anne-Maree, Keeley, Philip, Woby, Steve, McGowan, Linda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8655535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34880007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045398
_version_ 1784612094239309824
author Antcliff, Deborah
Keenan, Anne-Maree
Keeley, Philip
Woby, Steve
McGowan, Linda
author_facet Antcliff, Deborah
Keenan, Anne-Maree
Keeley, Philip
Woby, Steve
McGowan, Linda
author_sort Antcliff, Deborah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of using a new activity pacing framework to standardise healthcare professionals’ instructions of pacing, and explore whether measures of activity pacing/symptoms detected changes following treatment. DESIGN: Single-arm, repeated measures study. SETTING: One National Health Service (NHS) Pain Service in Northern England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with chronic pain/fatigue, including chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. INTERVENTIONS: Six-week rehabilitation programme, standardised using the activity pacing framework. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was explored via patients’ recruitment/attrition rates, adherence and satisfaction, and healthcare professionals’ fidelity. Questionnaire data were collected from patients at the start and end of the programme (T1 and T2, respectively) and 3 months’ follow-up (T3). Questionnaires included measures of activity pacing, current/usual pain, physical/mental fatigue, depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, avoidance, physical/mental function and quality of life. Mean changes in activity pacing and symptoms between T1-T2, T2-T3 and T1-T3 were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 139 eligible patients, 107 patients consented (recruitment rate=77%); 65 patients completed T2 (T1-T2 attrition rate=39%), and 52 patients completed T3 (T1-T3 attrition rate=51%). At T2, patients’ satisfaction ratings averaged 9/10, and 89% attended ≥5 rehabilitation programme sessions. Activity pacing and all symptoms improved between T1 and T2, with smaller improvements maintained at T3. CONCLUSION: The activity pacing framework was feasible to implement and patients’ ability to pace and manage their symptoms improved. Future work will employ a suitable comparison group and test the framework across wider settings to explore the effects of activity pacing in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03497585.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8655535
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86555352021-12-27 Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study Antcliff, Deborah Keenan, Anne-Maree Keeley, Philip Woby, Steve McGowan, Linda BMJ Open Rehabilitation Medicine OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of using a new activity pacing framework to standardise healthcare professionals’ instructions of pacing, and explore whether measures of activity pacing/symptoms detected changes following treatment. DESIGN: Single-arm, repeated measures study. SETTING: One National Health Service (NHS) Pain Service in Northern England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with chronic pain/fatigue, including chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. INTERVENTIONS: Six-week rehabilitation programme, standardised using the activity pacing framework. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was explored via patients’ recruitment/attrition rates, adherence and satisfaction, and healthcare professionals’ fidelity. Questionnaire data were collected from patients at the start and end of the programme (T1 and T2, respectively) and 3 months’ follow-up (T3). Questionnaires included measures of activity pacing, current/usual pain, physical/mental fatigue, depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, avoidance, physical/mental function and quality of life. Mean changes in activity pacing and symptoms between T1-T2, T2-T3 and T1-T3 were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 139 eligible patients, 107 patients consented (recruitment rate=77%); 65 patients completed T2 (T1-T2 attrition rate=39%), and 52 patients completed T3 (T1-T3 attrition rate=51%). At T2, patients’ satisfaction ratings averaged 9/10, and 89% attended ≥5 rehabilitation programme sessions. Activity pacing and all symptoms improved between T1 and T2, with smaller improvements maintained at T3. CONCLUSION: The activity pacing framework was feasible to implement and patients’ ability to pace and manage their symptoms improved. Future work will employ a suitable comparison group and test the framework across wider settings to explore the effects of activity pacing in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03497585. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8655535/ /pubmed/34880007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045398 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Rehabilitation Medicine
Antcliff, Deborah
Keenan, Anne-Maree
Keeley, Philip
Woby, Steve
McGowan, Linda
Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
title Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
title_full Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
title_fullStr Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
title_full_unstemmed Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
title_short Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
title_sort testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
topic Rehabilitation Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8655535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34880007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045398
work_keys_str_mv AT antcliffdeborah testinganewlydevelopedactivitypacingframeworkforchronicpainfatigueafeasibilitystudy
AT keenanannemaree testinganewlydevelopedactivitypacingframeworkforchronicpainfatigueafeasibilitystudy
AT keeleyphilip testinganewlydevelopedactivitypacingframeworkforchronicpainfatigueafeasibilitystudy
AT wobysteve testinganewlydevelopedactivitypacingframeworkforchronicpainfatigueafeasibilitystudy
AT mcgowanlinda testinganewlydevelopedactivitypacingframeworkforchronicpainfatigueafeasibilitystudy