header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PROFILES OF PEOPLE WITH LOW BACK PAIN AND AGE-MATCHED CONTROLS OVER 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS



Abstract

Background & Purpose: Current clinical guidelines support physical activity programmes for people with low back pain (LBP), but a major factor limiting their efficacy is the patient’s level of adherence, difficult to assess using self-report, and the lack of objective data on activity levels in this population. This study investigated differences in the self-report and objective activity levels of LBP patients and age-matched controls.

Methods: 20 patients with non-specific LBP [5 male, 15 female; mean (SD) age = 43.2 (12.1) years] and 20 healthy controls [10 male, 10 female; mean (SD) age = 39.6 (10.9) years] wore the activPAL™ uniaxial accelerometer on the anterior thigh during waking hours for 7 days, and completed the 7-Day Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire (7DRQ). Data were analysed using SPSS (v12).

Results: There was no difference between groups in energy expenditure as measured by the 7DRQ (p> 0.05), but the activPAL™ data showed LBP subjects expended significantly less energy than controls (p=0.004) over the 7-day period, and failed to reach the recommended 10,000 steps per day [mean (SD) = 8067.9 steps (2581.7)] compared to controls [mean (SD)= 10,864 (3,570.3); t = 2.84, p=0.007)]. The LBP subjects also had a significantly lower mean cadence (p=0.004), a lower walking index (p=0.001), and took significantly more short walks (0–100 steps) and less long walks (> 100 steps) than controls (p< 0.05).

Conclusions & Implications: People with LBP are less physically active than age-matched controls, and this is more evident with objective than subjective evaluation. These findings have informed the design of a targeted walking programme for LBP patients.

Correspondence should be addressed to SBPR at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.