LAUSR

Background Lifestyle factors such as physical activity (PA) has the possibility to contribute to improved health and quality of life in the population as well as in chronic diseases. Most often PA is self-reported while measures of the aerobic capacity are more seldom measured in subjects with chronic pain. Objectives To describe physical activity levels (self-reported and aerobic capacity) in people with chronic pain classified as regional or widespread and to compare the findings with a group that report no pain. Methods From the 2016 follow-up of the Swedish population based Epipain cohort (n 1321), 146 subjects were invited to a clinical assessment where the aerobic capacity was assessed by using a submaximal bicycle test, the Ekblom-Bak test, together with assessment of the Borg scale for perceived exertion (RPE). Aerobic capacity was also classified as low, average or high according to data from the general population. Self-reported physical activity was coded as MVPArec if recommended levels of PA was reported (physically active on a moderate level ≥150 min/week (MPA) or on an vigorous level ≥75 min/week (VPA) or not). The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire for PA (FABQ-PA, 0–24 best to worst) and for work (FABQ-W, 0–48 best to worst) were also assessed. The participants were classified as having chronic widespread pain (CWP), chronic regional pain (CRP) or no chronic pain (NCP) based on a pain mannequin presenting 0–18 pain regions and if pain had lasted for 3 months or more. Chi2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to study differences between the three pain groups. Results 141/146 (97%) subjects (mean (SD) age 59.4 (8.2) years) whereof 61% were women, could be classified into pain groups; 43 as CWP (84% women), 43 as CRP (42% women) and 55 as NCP (58% women). The group with CWP was slightly older than those with CRP (mean (SD) age 57.0 (7.6) years vs. 61.9 (6.9) years, p 0.02). The CWP group also had lower aerobic capacity (mean (SD) 2.2 (0.5) l/min vs. 2.6 (0.6) l/min, p 0.03), and a larger proportion was classified as having low aerobic capacity (CWP 21%, CRP 7% and NCP 10%, p 0.04). The proportion of MVPArec did not differ between the groups; CWP 70%, CRP 81% and NCP 74% (p 0.5). There was neither a difference between the groups in BMI, RPE or in sitting hours/week (p>0.6). However, differences were found in the FABQ where in the PA scale those with CRP had worse scores compared with NCP (mean (SD) 11.2 (7.3) vs. 6.0 (6.0), p<0.001), the difference between CWP (mean (SD) 8.9 (6.7)) and NCP was p 0.06. In the work subscale of FABQ, CWP had worse scores compared with CRP (mean (SD) 18.9 (15.7) vs. 10.0 (12.5), p 0.002) and CRP had worse scores compared to those with NCP (mean (SD) 10.0 (12.5) vs. 6.5 (9.1), p<0.001). Conclusions In this sample of subjects with chronic pain or no pain, having widespread pain tended to affect the aerobic capacity negatively while self-reports of reaching recommended levels of physical activity did not differ between groups. Fear avoidance in relation to physical activity and especially in relation to work was more noticeable in subjects with chronic pain compared to those with no pain. Measures of aerobic capacity and information of fear avoidance beliefs might help health professionals to better tailor the non-pharmacological treatment for subjects with chronic pain. Disclosure of Interest None declared