Acute exercise as active inference in chronic musculoskeletal pain, effects on gait kinematics and muscular activity in patients and healthy participants: a study protocol for a randomised controlled laboratory trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a highly prevalent, complex and distressing condition that may negatively affect all domains of life. In view of an active inference framework, and resting on the concept of allostasis, human movement per se becomes a prerequisite for health and well-being while chronic pain becomes a sign of a system unable to attenuate an allostatic load. Previous studies on different subgroups of chronic pain conditions have demonstrated alterations in gait kinematics and muscle activity, indicating shared disturbances in the motor system from long-term allostatic load. We hypothesise that such alterations exist in heterogenous populations with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and that exposure to acute and controlled exercise may attenuate these alterations. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the acute effects of exercise on gait kinematics and activity of the back and neck muscles during diverse walking conditions in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain compared with a reference sample consisting of healthy participants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-sample two-armed parallel randomised controlled laboratory trial will include 40 participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain (>3 months) and 40 healthy participants. Participants will be randomly allocated to either 30 min of aerobic exercise or rest. Primary outcomes are gait kinematics (walking speed, step frequency, stride length, lumbar rotation, gait stability) and muscular activity (spatial and temporal) of the back and neck during diverse walking conditions. Secondary outcomes are variability of gait kinematics and muscle activity and subjective pain ratings assessed regularly during the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Regional Ethics Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (#2018/307). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, publications in peer-reviewed journals and engagement with patient support groups and clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03882333.

Evaluation of content validity and feasibility of the eVISualisation of physical activity and pain (eVIS) intervention for patients with chronic pain participating in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain negatively influences most aspects of life, including aerobic capacity and physical function. The "eVISualisation of physical activity and pain" (eVIS) intervention was developed to facilitate individualized physical activity for treatment in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the content validity and feasibility of the eVIS intervention prior to an effectiveness trial. METHODS: In order to determine pre-clinical content validity, experts (n = 10) (patients, caregivers, researchers) participated in three assessment rounds using a Likert-scale survey where relevance, simplicity, and safety were rated, whereafter the intervention was revised. Item-content validity index (I-CVI), average, and overall CVI were used to quantify ratings. To determine content validity and feasibility in the clinical context, experts (n = 8) (patients and physiotherapists) assessed eVIS after a 2-3-week test trial, with the feasibility aspects acceptability, demand, implementation, limited efficacy-testing, and practicality in focus. Additional expert interviews (with physiotherapists, physicians) were conducted on two incomplete areas. RESULTS: The intervention was iteratively revised and refined throughout the study. After three assessment and revision rounds, the I-CVI ratings for relevance, simplicity, and safety ranged between 0.88 and 1.00 (≥0.78) in most items, giving eVIS "excellent" content validity. In the IPRP context, the intervention emerged as valid and feasible. Additional interviews further contributed to its content validity and clinical feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed domains and features of the eVIS intervention are deemed valid in its content and feasible in the IPRP context. The consecutive step-by-step evaluation process enabled careful intervention development with revisions to be made in close collaboration with stakeholders. Findings implicate a robust base ahead of the forthcoming effectiveness trial.

Effectiveness of the eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) in Swedish Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programmes: study protocol for a registry-based randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Living with chronic pain often involves negative consequences. Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programmes (IPRP) is considered superior to single-treatment measures in patients with chronic pain. Despite this, effects emerge suboptimal and more than 20% of patients deteriorate in patient-reported physical health outcomes after IPRP. A novel e-Health intervention, eVISualisation (eVIS) of physical activity and pain, was systematically developed to facilitate individualisation of physical activity levels. By adding elements of data collection, visualisation and communication of objectively measured physical activity and patient-reported outcomes (pain intensity, interference of pain, pharmaceutical consumption) to existing treatment modalities in IPRP, the IPRP team acquires prerequisites to adapt advice and physical activity prescriptions and to evaluate set activity goals. The overall aim is twofold. First, the aim is to evaluate the feasibility of the subsequent registry-based randomised controlled clinical trial (R-RCT). Second, the aim is to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the eVIS-intervention as a supplement to IPRP on our defined primary (physical health) and secondary outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In the R-RCT, recruitment of 400 patients with chronic pain will be performed at 15 IPRP units. A random allocation to either IPRP + eVIS or to control group that will receive IPRP only will be performed. Data from the initial 30 participants completing the study period (6 months) will be included in a pilot study, where key feasibility outcomes (recruitment, randomisation, implementation, treatment integrity, data collection procedure, preliminary outcome measures) will be evaluated. Outcome variables will be extracted from the web application Pain And TRaining ON-line (PATRON) and from six national registries. Multivariate statistics and repeated measure analyses will be performed. Quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated for cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The Swedish Ethics Review Board granted approval (Dnr 2021/02109). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05009459. Protocol V.1.

Shifting roles: physiotherapists' perception of person-centered care during a pre-implementation phase in the acute hospital setting - A phenomenographic study.

BACKGROUND: Person-centered care (PCC) is an acknowledged health care practice involving increased patient influence regarding decisions and deliberation. Research indicates that physiotherapists (PTs) embrace patient participation, but that PCC is difficult to grasp and fully implement. OBJECTIVE: To contribute to knowledge about how PCC influences physiotherapy by eliciting PTs' experiences from the acute care setting, this study aims to describe and illuminate variations in perceptions of PCC during a pre-implementation phase, among PTs in acute hospital care. METHODS: Phenomenological approach: individual interviews with PTs in acute care (n = 7) combined with focus group interviews (n = 3). FINDINGS: The analysis yielded two main categories: 1) Physiotherapists perceived a transformed patient role involved in the transition from patient to person; and 2) Physiotherapists perceived a challenged professional role when departing from the expert role, and entailed restrictions to prescribing the best treatment and, instead, meant aiming for a collaborative and equal relationship with the patient. CONCLUSION: Although the interviewed PTs embraced PCC in principle, PCC does seem to challenge the professional roles of patient and PT. The findings indicate that theories of power relations need to be considered, and further reflection may facilitate implementation. More research is needed to deepen the knowledge of how PTs perceive PCC during all implementation phases.

Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers in Laboratory and Free-Living Settings for Patients With Chronic Pain: Criterion Validity Study.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is evidently a crucial part of the rehabilitation process for patients with chronic pain. Modern wrist-worn activity tracking devices seemingly have a great potential to provide objective feedback and assist in the adoption of healthy physical activity behavior by supplying data of energy expenditure expressed as metabolic equivalent of task units (MET). However, no studies of any wrist-worn activity tracking devices' have examined criterion validity in estimating energy expenditure, heart rate, or step count in patients with chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine the criterion validity of wrist-worn activity tracking devices for estimations of energy expenditure, heart rate, and step count in a controlled laboratory setting and free-living settings for patients with chronic pain. METHODS: In this combined laboratory and field validation study, energy expenditure, heart rate, and step count were simultaneously estimated by a wrist-worn activity tracker (Fitbit Versa), indirect calorimetry (Jaeger Oxycon Pro), and a research-grade hip-worn accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X) during treadmill walking at 3 speeds (3.0 km/h, 4.5 km/h, and 6.0 km/h) in the laboratory setting. Energy expenditure and step count were also estimated by the wrist-worn activity tracker in free-living settings for 72 hours. The criterion validity of each measure was determined using intraclass and Spearman correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and mean absolute percentage error. An analysis of variance was used to determine whether there were any significant systematic differences between estimations. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (age: 25-66 years; male: 10/42, 24%; female: 32/42, 76%), living with chronic pain (duration, in years: mean 9, SD 6.72) were included. At baseline, their mean pain intensity was 3.5 (SD 1.1) out of 6 (Multidimensional Pain Inventory, Swedish version). Results showed that the wrist-worn activity tracking device (Fitbit Versa) systematically overestimated energy expenditure when compared to the criterion standard (Jaeger Oxycon Pro) and the relative criterion standard (ActiGraph GT3X). Poor agreement and poor correlation were shown between Fitbit Versa and both Jaeger Oxycon Pro and ActiGraph GT3X for estimated energy expenditure at all treadmill speeds. Estimations of heart rate demonstrated poor to fair agreement during laboratory-based treadmill walks. For step count, the wrist-worn devices showed fair agreement and fair correlation at most treadmill speeds. In free-living settings; however, the agreement for step count between the wrist-worn device and waist-worn accelerometer was good, and the correlation was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: The wrist-worn device systematically overestimated energy expenditure and showed poor agreement and correlation compared to the criterion standard (Jaeger Oxycon Pro) and the relative criterion standard (ActiGraph GT3X), which needs to be considered when used clinically. Step count measured with a wrist-worn device, however, seemed to be a valid estimation, suggesting that future guidelines could include such variables in this group with chronic pain.