Engaging stakeholders to refine an activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: A nominal group technique

A scoping review of 'Pacing' for management of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS): lessons learned for the long COVID pandemic

BACKGROUND

Controversy over treatment for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a barrier to appropriate treatment. Energy management or pacing is a prominent coping strategy for people with ME/CFS. Whilst a definitive definition of pacing is not unanimous within the literature or healthcare providers, it typically comprises regulating activity to avoid post exertional malaise (PEM), the worsening of symptoms after an activity. Until now, characteristics of pacing, and the effects on patients' symptoms had not been systematically reviewed. This is problematic as the most common approach to pacing, pacing prescription, and the pooled efficacy of pacing was unknown. Collating evidence may help advise those suffering with similar symptoms, including long COVID, as practitioners would be better informed on methodological approaches to adopt, pacing implementation, and expected outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

In this scoping review of the literature, we aggregated type of, and outcomes of, pacing in people with ME/CFS.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original investigations concerning pacing were considered in participants with ME/CFS.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Six electronic databases (PubMed, Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) were searched; and websites MEPedia, Action for ME, and ME Action were also searched for grey literature, to fully capture patient surveys not published in academic journals.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Review selection and characterisation was performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

RESULTS

Authors reviewed 177 titles and abstracts, resulting in 17 included studies: three randomised control trials (RCTs); one uncontrolled trial; one interventional case series; one retrospective observational study; two prospective observational studies; four cross-sectional observational studies; and five cross-sectional analytical studies. Studies included variable designs, durations, and outcome measures. In terms of pacing administration, studies used educational sessions and diaries for activity monitoring. Eleven studies reported benefits of pacing, four studies reported no effect, and two studies reported a detrimental effect in comparison to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly variable study designs and outcome measures, allied to poor to fair methodological quality resulted in heterogenous findings and highlights the requirement for more research examining pacing. Looking to the long COVID pandemic, our results suggest future studies should be RCTs utilising objectively quantified digitised pacing, over a longer duration of examination (i.e. longitudinal studies), using the core outcome set for patient reported outcome measures. Until these are completed, the literature base is insufficient to inform treatment practises for people with ME/CFS and long COVID.

Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

To test the feasibility of using a new activity pacing framework to standardise healthcare professionals' instructions of pacing, and explore whether measures of activity pacing/symptoms detected changes following treatment.

DESIGN

Single-arm, repeated measures study.

SETTING

One National Health Service (NHS) Pain Service in Northern England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with chronic pain/fatigue, including chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.

INTERVENTIONS

Six-week rehabilitation programme, standardised using the activity pacing framework.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility was explored via patients' recruitment/attrition rates, adherence and satisfaction, and healthcare professionals' fidelity. Questionnaire data were collected from patients at the start and end of the programme (T1 and T2, respectively) and 3 months' follow-up (T3). Questionnaires included measures of activity pacing, current/usual pain, physical/mental fatigue, depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, avoidance, physical/mental function and quality of life. Mean changes in activity pacing and symptoms between T1-T2, T2-T3 and T1-T3 were estimated.

RESULTS

Of the 139 eligible patients, 107 patients consented (recruitment rate=77%); 65 patients completed T2 (T1-T2 attrition rate=39%), and 52 patients completed T3 (T1-T3 attrition rate=51%). At T2, patients' satisfaction ratings averaged 9/10, and 89% attended ≥5 rehabilitation programme sessions. Activity pacing and all symptoms improved between T1 and T2, with smaller improvements maintained at T3.

CONCLUSION

The activity pacing framework was feasible to implement and patients' ability to pace and manage their symptoms improved. Future work will employ a suitable comparison group and test the framework across wider settings to explore the effects of activity pacing in a randomised controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03497585.

"Pacing does help you get your life back": The acceptability of a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue

OBJECTIVES

We have developed and feasibility tested an activity pacing framework for clinicians to standardise their recommendations of activity pacing to patients with chronic pain/fatigue. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and fidelity to this framework in preparation for a future trial of activity pacing.

DESIGN

Acceptability and fidelity were explored using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who attended a rehabilitation programme for chronic pain/fatigue underpinned by the framework, and clinicians (physiotherapists and psychological wellbeing practitioners) who led the programmes.

RESULTS

Seventeen interviews were conducted, involving 12 patients with chronic pain/fatigue and five clinicians. The framework analysis revealed four deductive themes: (1) Acceptability of the activity pacing framework, (2) Acceptability of the feasibility study methods, (3) Processes of change and (4) Barriers and facilitators to activity pacing; and one inductive theme: (5) Perspectives of patients and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The activity pacing framework appeared acceptable to patients and clinicians, and adherence to the framework was demonstrated. Processes of behaviour change included patients' regulation of activities through activity pacing. Barriers to pacing included work/social commitments and facilitators included identifying the benefits of pacing on symptoms. Different perspectives emerged between clinicians and patients regarding interpretations of symptom-contingent and quota-contingent strategies. The framework recognises fluctuations in symptoms of chronic pain/fatigue and encourages a quota-contingent approach with flexibility. Future work will develop a patient friendly guide ahead of a clinical trial to explore the effects of pacing.

Practical and Clinical Approaches Using Pacing to Improve Selfregulation in Special Populations such as Children and People with Mental Health or Learning Disabilities

For special populations such as people with a mental health issue or learning disability, a disconnect between the ability to accurately monitor and regulate exercise behaviour can lead to reduced levels of physical activity, which, in turn, is associated with additional physical or mental health problems. Activity pacing is a strategy used in clinical settings to address issues of pain amelioration, while self-pacing research is now well addressed in sport and exercise science literature. It has been proposed recently that these overlapping areas of investigation collectively support the development of self-regulatory, lifestyle exercise skills across broad population groups. Activity pacing appears to have substantial application in numerous development and rehabilitation settings and, therefore, the purpose of this short communication is to articulate how an activity pacing approach could be utilized among population groups in whom self-regulatory skills may require development. This paper provides specific examples of exercise practice across 2 discrete populations: children, and people with mental health and learning difficulties. In these cases, homeostatic regulatory processes may either be altered, or the individual may require extrinsic support to appropriately self-regulate exercise performance. A support-based exercise environment or approach such as programmatic activity (lifestyle) pacing would be beneficial to facilitate supervised and education-based self-regulation until such time as fully self-regulated exercise is feasible.