Andrews Nicole E, Strong Jenny, Meredith Pamela J, Branjerdporn Grace S
Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Department of Occupational Therapy, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Aust Occup Ther J. 2018 Dec;65(6):575-585. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12516. Epub 2018 Sep 4.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Activity pacing is one of the most widely endorsed interventions used by occupational therapists to assist clients to manage chronic pain conditions. It targets two behaviours that are thought to be maladaptive: activity avoidance and overactivity (activity engagement that severely aggravates pain). However, in more recent years, the potential for activity pacing to negatively impact activity participation has been recognised which deters habitually overactive individuals from adopting the self-management strategy. The main aim of this study was to evaluate if variances in activity participation can be explained by how individuals approach activity engagement when in pain.
Sixty-eight adults with chronic pain completed a demographic questionnaire, the Pain and Activity Relations Questionnaire (PARQ), and recorded their participation in activities for five days using a paper diary. Two of the authors independently coded the recorded activities into one of three time-use categories: rest, productivity or leisure/social. A MANCOVA model was produced to examine differences in time use across four 'approach to activity engagement' categories which were determined by scores on the PARQ.
A significant multivariate effect was found. Univariate comparisons revealed that 'overactives' (high overactivity, low avoidance) and 'pacers' (low overactivity, low avoidance) spent a similar amount of time resting over the five-day period. 'Overactives' spent the most amount of time on productive tasks and the least amount of time on social/leisure activities out of the four subgroups.
Results suggest that activity pacing does not negatively impact on activity participation in chronic pain populations. 'Pacers' spent a similar amount of time resting, and had a slightly better balance between productive tasks and leisure/social activities, when compared to 'overactives'. The results of this study can be incorporated into patient education and highlight potential treatment avenues for individuals with chronic pain who are habitually overactive.
背景/目的:活动节奏调整是职业治疗师广泛认可的用于帮助患者管理慢性疼痛状况的干预措施之一。它针对两种被认为是适应不良的行为:活动回避和过度活动(严重加剧疼痛的活动参与)。然而,近年来,人们认识到活动节奏调整可能会对活动参与产生负面影响,这使得习惯性过度活动的个体不愿采用这种自我管理策略。本研究的主要目的是评估在疼痛时个体参与活动的方式是否能够解释活动参与的差异。
68名患有慢性疼痛的成年人完成了一份人口统计学问卷、疼痛与活动关系问卷(PARQ),并使用纸质日记记录了他们五天内的活动参与情况。两位作者将记录的活动独立编码为三个时间使用类别之一:休息、生产性活动或休闲/社交活动。构建了一个协方差分析模型,以检验由PARQ得分确定的四个“活动参与方式”类别在时间使用上的差异。
发现了显著的多变量效应。单变量比较显示,“过度活动者”(高过度活动、低回避)和“节奏调整者”(低过度活动、低回避)在五天内休息的时间相似。在四个亚组中,“过度活动者”在生产性任务上花费的时间最多,在社交/休闲活动上花费的时间最少。
结果表明,活动节奏调整不会对慢性疼痛人群的活动参与产生负面影响。与“过度活动者”相比,“节奏调整者”休息时间相似,在生产性任务和休闲/社交活动之间的平衡略好。本研究结果可纳入患者教育,并为习惯性过度活动的慢性疼痛个体突出潜在的治疗途径。