Why the study?
Little is known about how activity pacing affects physical activity and health-related quality of life over time in adults with multiple sclerosis while controlling for fatigue and demographic characteristics.
Does the natural use of activity pacing improve physical activity and health-related quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis?
Does the natural use of activity pacing improve physical activity and health-related quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis?
Natural use of activity pacing does not appear to be a successful strategy for improving physical activity and health-related quality of life in adults with multiple sclerosis, suggesting a need for goal-directed interventions.
Activity pacing in MS remains underexplored; leaves open its independent effects on PA and HRQOL after controlling for fatigue.
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: = .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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abonie et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: