Susan V Baxter1,2, Leigh A Hale1, Simon Stebbings3, Andrew R Gray3, Catherine M Smith1, Gareth J Treharne2. 1. Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa/New Zealand. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa/New Zealand. 3. Department of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise has been recognized as important in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Walking is a low-cost and low-impact activity, requiring little supervision. It requires no specialist training, is suited to a variety of environments and is inherently a clinically meaningful measure of independence. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a designed walking programme for people with RA successfully facilitated regular physical activity in participants, without detriment to pain levels. METHODS:Thirty-three people with RA were recruited from Dunedin Hospital rheumatology outpatient clinics and enrolled in a walking randomized controlled trial (RCT) feasibility study. Participants were randomly allocated to the walking intervention (n = 11) or control (n = 22) groups. Control participants received a nutrition education session, and the walking intervention group received instructions on a walking route with three loops, to be completed 3-4 times per week. The walking route shape was designed so that the length of the walk could be tailored by participants. Both groups were assessed at baseline and six weeks later. The primary outcome measures were feasibility, acceptability and safety. The principal secondary outcome was change in walking speed after the intervention. Additional outcome measures were a step-up test, activity limitations (on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), global well-being (on the European Quality of Life Questionnaire), self-efficacy for managing arthritis symptoms, self-efficacy for physical activity, daily pedometer readings and a daily visual analogue scale for pain. RESULTS: Participants successfully completed the walk for the suggested frequency, indicating feasibility and acceptability. There were no reported adverse effects of participation and the walking intervention group did not have higher daily pain levels than the control group, indicating safety. The walking intervention group showed a pattern of improvements in self-efficacy and global well-being; no changes in these outcomes were noted in the control group. No outcome measure showed statistically significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Walking appears to be a feasible, acceptable and safe intervention for people with RA. These findings inform the design and power requirements of larger trials of structured walking interventions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Exercise has been recognized as important in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Walking is a low-cost and low-impact activity, requiring little supervision. It requires no specialist training, is suited to a variety of environments and is inherently a clinically meaningful measure of independence. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a designed walking programme for people with RA successfully facilitated regular physical activity in participants, without detriment to pain levels. METHODS: Thirty-three people with RA were recruited from Dunedin Hospital rheumatology outpatient clinics and enrolled in a walking randomized controlled trial (RCT) feasibility study. Participants were randomly allocated to the walking intervention (n = 11) or control (n = 22) groups. Control participants received a nutrition education session, and the walking intervention group received instructions on a walking route with three loops, to be completed 3-4 times per week. The walking route shape was designed so that the length of the walk could be tailored by participants. Both groups were assessed at baseline and six weeks later. The primary outcome measures were feasibility, acceptability and safety. The principal secondary outcome was change in walking speed after the intervention. Additional outcome measures were a step-up test, activity limitations (on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), global well-being (on the European Quality of Life Questionnaire), self-efficacy for managing arthritis symptoms, self-efficacy for physical activity, daily pedometer readings and a daily visual analogue scale for pain. RESULTS:Participants successfully completed the walk for the suggested frequency, indicating feasibility and acceptability. There were no reported adverse effects of participation and the walking intervention group did not have higher daily pain levels than the control group, indicating safety. The walking intervention group showed a pattern of improvements in self-efficacy and global well-being; no changes in these outcomes were noted in the control group. No outcome measure showed statistically significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Walking appears to be a feasible, acceptable and safe intervention for people with RA. These findings inform the design and power requirements of larger trials of structured walking interventions.
Authors: Kelsey J Picha; Kate N Jochimsen; Nicholas R Heebner; John P Abt; Ellen L Usher; Gilson Capilouto; Tim L Uhl Journal: Musculoskeletal Care Date: 2018-09-20
Authors: Sean G McKenna; Alan E Donnelly; Bente A Esbensen; Alexander D Fraser; Norelee M Kennedy Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Asimina Lazaridou; Marc O Martel; Marise Cornelius; Olivia Franceschelli; Claudia Campbell; Michael Smith; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; John R Wright; Robert R Edwards Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Nadia M T Roodenrijs; Attila Hamar; Melinda Kedves; György Nagy; Jacob M van Laar; Désirée van der Heijde; Paco M J Welsing Journal: RMD Open Date: 2021-01
Authors: György Nagy; Nadia M T Roodenrijs; Désirée van der Heijde; Jacob M van Laar; Paco M J Welsing; Melinda Kedves; Attila Hamar; Marlies C van der Goes; Alison Kent; Margot Bakkers; Polina Pchelnikova; Etienne Blaas; Ladislav Senolt; Zoltan Szekanecz; Ernest H Choy; Maxime Dougados; Johannes Wg Jacobs; Rinie Geenen; Johannes Wj Bijlsma; Angela Zink; Daniel Aletaha; Leonard Schoneveld; Piet van Riel; Sophie Dumas; Yeliz Prior; Elena Nikiphorou; Gianfranco Ferraccioli; Georg Schett; Kimme L Hyrich; Ulf Mueller-Ladner; Maya H Buch; Iain B McInnes Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: James M Gwinnutt; Maud Wieczorek; Giulio Cavalli; Andra Balanescu; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Annelies Boonen; Savia de Souza; Annette de Thurah; Thomas E Dorner; Rikke Helene Moe; Polina Putrik; Javier Rodríguez-Carrio; Lucía Silva-Fernández; Tanja Stamm; Karen Walker-Bone; Joep Welling; Mirjana I Zlatković-Švenda; Francis Guillemin; Suzanne M M Verstappen Journal: RMD Open Date: 2022-03
Authors: Sally A M Fenton; Joan L Duda; Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten; George S Metsios; George D Kitas Journal: Mediterr J Rheumatol Date: 2020-03-31