Does PF moderate the efficacy of AP in chronic pain? v2.0
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A flexible approach to pacing: What is the relationship between psychological flexibility, activity pacing and physical functioning in chronic pain?
IRAS ID
278073
Contact name
Alan Bowman
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Teesside University
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
N/A, N/A
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 1 months, 24 days
Research summary
Chronic or persistent pain, refers to pain that persists beyond the expected healing period for an injury and / or is experienced everyday for three months. Chronic pain conditions are associated immense suffering for individuals and families, and huge economic costs to healthcare services. Activity pacing (AP) refers to strategies to adapt one's activity levels in order to continue achieving personally important goals without becoming disabled by one's pain. Activity pacing is widely recommended by health services and international guidelines as a helpful self-management approach for chronic pain conditions, but research studies have not consistently found that pacing leads to improved outcomes.
In recent years a number of research studies have suggested that activity pacing and psychological flexibility (PF) might be linked. Psychological flexibility refers to a set of skills that allows individuals to consider thoughts and emotions from a less attached perspective and therefore to act based on long-term values and goals rather than transient experiences. If psychological flexibility and activity pacing are linked, this may explain why research on the latter has been inconclusive. It may be that it is not only whether or not people use pacing strategies, but also how and why they are used that are important. However research to date has not directly or adequately elucidated the relationship between PF and AP.
Therefore this study aims to build on recent research by exploring the relationship between PF, AP and physical functioning in chronic pain. Within the study patients with chronic pain will complete questionnaires about AP, PF and their physical functioning, and relationships between these variables will be explored. Understanding the nature of this relationship may have implications for how AP interventions may be implemented in clinical practice to maximise benefits for patients.REC name
London - Bromley Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
20/LO/1139
Date of REC Opinion
29 Oct 2020
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion