Ulric S Abonie1,2, Bregje L Seves3, Femke Hoekstra3,4, Trynke Hoekstra3,5, Lucas H V van der Woude3,4, Rienk Dekker4, Florentina J Hettinga6. 1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho, Ghana (USA). 2. School of Sport, Rehabilitation, and Exercise Science, University of Essex, Colchester, UK (USA). 3. Center for Human Movement Sciences (BLS, FH, TH, LHVvdW), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Rehabilitation (FH, LHVvdW, RD), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Health Sciences and Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (TH). 6. Department of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (FJH).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Activity pacing is a behavioral strategy for coping with fatigue, optimizing physical activity (PA) levels, and achieving a paced approach to lifestyle and sustainable self-regulated exercise practice to optimize health and well-being. Yet little is known about how activity pacing affects PA and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) while controlling for fatigue and demographic characteristics over time in adults with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study examined the natural use of activity pacing and how it is associated with PA and HRQOL over time in adults with MS. METHODS: Sixty-eight adults with MS (mean ± SD age, 45.2 ± 10.9 years) completed questionnaires on their activity pacing, fatigue, PA, and HRQOL 14, 33, and 52 weeks after rehabilitation. Associations between the variables were examined using multilevel models. RESULTS: No associations were found between activity pacing and PA (β = -0.01, P = .89) or between activity pacing and HRQOL (β = -0.15, P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an initial understanding of how activity pacing relates to PA and HRQOL in people with MS over time and indicates that there is no clear strategy among adults with MS that is successful in improving PA and HRQOL in the short or long term. Persons with MS may benefit from goal-directed activity pacing interventions to improve longitudinal engagement in PA, and the present study provides a foundation for further intervention development.
BACKGROUND: Activity pacing is a behavioral strategy for coping with fatigue, optimizing physical activity (PA) levels, and achieving a paced approach to lifestyle and sustainable self-regulated exercise practice to optimize health and well-being. Yet little is known about how activity pacing affects PA and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) while controlling for fatigue and demographic characteristics over time in adults with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study examined the natural use of activity pacing and how it is associated with PA and HRQOL over time in adults with MS. METHODS: Sixty-eight adults with MS (mean ± SD age, 45.2 ± 10.9 years) completed questionnaires on their activity pacing, fatigue, PA, and HRQOL 14, 33, and 52 weeks after rehabilitation. Associations between the variables were examined using multilevel models. RESULTS: No associations were found between activity pacing and PA (β = -0.01, P = .89) or between activity pacing and HRQOL (β = -0.15, P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an initial understanding of how activity pacing relates to PA and HRQOL in people with MS over time and indicates that there is no clear strategy among adults with MS that is successful in improving PA and HRQOL in the short or long term. Persons with MS may benefit from goal-directed activity pacing interventions to improve longitudinal engagement in PA, and the present study provides a foundation for further intervention development.
Authors: Bregje L Seves; Femke Hoekstra; Jorrit W A Schoenmakers; Pim Brandenbarg; Trynke Hoekstra; Florentina J Hettinga; Rienk Dekker; Lucas H V van der Woude; Cees P van der Schans Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: T Smedal; A G Beiske; S B Glad; K-M Myhr; J H Aarseth; E Svensson; B Gjelsvik; L I Strand Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: S Merkelbach; H Schulz; H W Kölmel; G Gora; J Klingelhöfer; R Dachsel; F Hoffmann; U Polzer Journal: J Neurol Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Trudie Chalder; Kimberley A Goldsmith; Peter D White; Michael Sharpe; Andrew R Pickles Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Ulric S Abonie; Femke Hoekstra; Bregje L Seves; Lucas H V van der Woude; Rienk Dekker; Florentina J Hettinga Journal: J Funct Morphol Kinesiol Date: 2020-06-15
Authors: Robert Wagenmakers; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Johan W Groothoff; Wiebren Zijlstra; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Johan W J Kootstra; G C Wanda Wendel-Vos; Jos J A M van Raaij; Martin Stevens Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2008-10-17 Impact factor: 2.362