Let's Talk Research 2015 - Deborah Antcliff -Using Mixed Methodology to Develop an Activity Pacing...
-
Upload
nhsnwrd -
Category
Health & Medicine
-
view
393 -
download
0
Transcript of Let's Talk Research 2015 - Deborah Antcliff -Using Mixed Methodology to Develop an Activity Pacing...
1
Using Mixed Methodology to Develop an Activity Pacing Questionnaire for
Chronic Pain/Fatigue
Dr. Deborah Antcliff
17th September 2015
2
Background to activity pacing Background to mixed methodolgy Findings of the study
Aims:
3
Background to activity pacing Activity pacing is frequently advised to help
manage long-term conditions Some anecdotal support for activity pacing Mixed empirical findings (Andrews et al., 2012) Guidelines cannot wholly recommend pacing
(NICE, 2007) Absence of a widely used pacing scale ‘Activity pacing’ lacks a clear definition
4
What does pacing mean? “Energy management, with the aim of
maximising cognitive and physical activity, while avoiding setbacks/relapses due to overexertion” (NICE, 2007, p50)
“The regulation of activity level and/or rate in the service of an adaptive goal or goals” (Nielson et al., 2012, p465)
5
What does that actually mean?
6
Aim and design of the study
Aim: Develop an Activity Pacing Questionnaire (APQ) for chronic pain and/or fatigue
Design: Three stage mixed methods study
7
Mixed methodology
Third research paradigm Combines quantitative and qualitative
methods Advantages Disadvantages
8
Study design
Exploratory sequential design• Stage I: Developing APQ items (qual)• Stage II: Assessing APQ psychometric
properties (quant)Additional stage:• Stage III: Exploring APQ acceptability (qual)
9
Stage I. Developing items
Consensus method: The Delphi technique Widely used in healthcare services ‘Rounds’ of questionnaires Expert panel
10
Stage I. Developing items 3 Round Delphi technique Final expert panel: 4 patients, 3 nurses, 26
physiotherapists, 9 occupational therapists Round 1 generated 94 items Round 3 reduced this to 38 questions
• reached ≥70% consensus• addressed a number of facets of pacing• represented views of 6 other patients who completed
Round 1
11
Stage II: Psychometric properties Quantitative, cross-sectional study; self-report
questionnaires Sample=311 patients with chronic pain/fatigue
(target 300, recruitment rate=20%) Test-retest=69 patients (target 60, response
rate=50%) 26-items with a 5-factor solution (5 ‘themes’) APQ demonstrated reliability (Cronbach’s
α=0.72-0.92), test-retest stability (ICC=0.50-0.78, p<0.001) and construct validity.
12
Stage II. Five themes underlying APQ
Activity adjustment
Activity acceptance Activity
planning
Activity consistency
Activity progression
13
Stage II. Five themes underlying APQAPQ Theme Example of questionActivity adjustment ‘I took a short rest from an activity so that
I could complete the activity later’Activity planning ‘I planned in advance how long I would
spend on each activity’Activity progression ‘I gradually increased how long I could
spend on my activities’Activity consistency ‘I kept to a consistent level of activity
every day’Activity acceptance ‘I was able to say “no” if I was unable to
do an activity’
14
Stage II. Properties of APQ themesKey findings: Activity adjustment significantly associated with
• increased pain, anxiety, depression and avoidance
• but decreased function Activity consistency significantly associated with
• decreased fatigue, anxiety, depression and avoidance
• but increased function
15
Stage III. Acceptability study Semi-structured telephone interviews with 16
patients Qualitative data analysed using Framework
analysis APQ is generally acceptable to patients Agreement with the five themes of pacing Four behaviour typologies:
• Task avoidance, Task persistence, Task fluctuation and Task modification (pacing)
16
How the 3 stages fitted together
17
Implications Activity pacing appears multifaceted
• Five themes: Activity adjustment, Activity acceptance, Activity planning, Activity consistency and Activity progression
A comprehensive scale has been developed for heterogeneous long-term conditions
The APQ-26 can be used to measure the effects of pacing to • add empirical evidence• measure patients’ changes in pacing behaviour/response
to treatment• assess treatment efficacy
18
Questions?
Acknowledgements:Prof. Philip KeeleyDr. Malcolm CampbellDr. Steve WobyProf. Linda McGowan
19
References Andrews, N. E., Strong, J. & Meredith, P. J. (2012) Activity pacing, avoidance,
endurance, and associations with patient functioning in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93, 2109-21 e7.
Antcliff D., Campbell M., Woby S., Keeley P. (2015) Assessing the Psychometric Properties of an Activity Pacing Questionnaire for Chronic Pain and Fatigue. Physical Therapy (ePub ahead of print).
Antcliff, D., Keeley, P., Campbell, M., Oldham, J. & Woby, S. (2013) The development of an activity pacing questionnaire for chronic pain and/or fatigue: a Delphi technique. Physiotherapy, 99, 241-6.
NICE (2007) Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (or encephalopathy). NICE Clinical Guideline 53. London.
Nielson, W. R., Jensen, M. P., Karsdorp, P. A. & Vlaeyen, J. W. (2012) Activity pacing in chronic pain: concepts, evidence, and future directions. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 29, 461-8.
White, P. D., Sharpe, M. C., Chalder, T., DeCesare, J. C., Walwyn, R. & PACE group. (2007) Protocol for the PACE trial: A randomised controlled trial of adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, and graded exercise as supplements to standardised specialist medical care versus standardised specialist medical care alone for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis or encephalopathy. BMC Neurology, 7, 6-25.