A pragmatic randomized controlled trial testing the effects of the international scientific SCI exercise guidelines on SCI chronic pain: protocol for the EPIC-SCI trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (the Exercise guideline Promotion and Implementation in Chronic SCI [EPIC-SCI] Trial). PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To test if home-/community-based exercise, prescribed according to the international SCI exercise guidelines, significantly reduces chronic bodily pain in adults with SCI. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To investigate: (1) the effects of exercise on musculoskeletal and neuropathic chronic pain; (2) if reduced inflammation and increased descending inhibitory control are viable pathways by which exercise reduces pain; (3) the effects of chronic pain reductions on subjective well-being; and (4) efficiency of a home-/community-based exercise intervention. SETTING: Exercise in home-/community-based settings; assessments in university-based laboratories in British Columbia, Canada. METHOD: Eighty-four adults with chronic SCI, reporting chronic musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, and not meeting the current SCI exercise guidelines, will be recruited and randomized to a 6-month Exercise or Wait-List Control condition. Exercise will occur in home/community settings and will be supported through behavioral counseling. All measures will be taken at baseline, 3-months and 6-months. Analyses will consist of linear mixed effect models, multiple regression analyses and a cost-utility analysis. The economic evaluation will examine the incremental costs and health benefits generated by the intervention compared with usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board approved the protocol (#H19-01650). Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, stakeholders will be engaged throughout the trial and will co-create and disseminate evidence-based recommendations and messages regarding the use of exercise to manage SCI chronic pain.

Physical activity measurement in people with spinal cord injury: comparison of accelerometry and self-report (the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury).

Purpose: To (1) evaluate the level of agreement between individually calibrated accelerometers and the self-reported Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury when assessing moderate-vigorous physical activity; and (2) qualitatively examine the different components of physical activity each measure assesses.Materials/methods: Nineteen manual wheelchair users with chronic spinal cord injury (19.0 ± 12.9 years post injury, C5-L2 injury level) wore a wrist and spoke accelerometer for one week then returned to the lab and completed the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury for their last 3 days of accelerometer wear.Results: Bland-Altman plots revealed low levels of agreement between the two measures when measuring total (bias = -5.6 ± 70.41 min/d, 95% agreement limits = -143.6-132.4 min/d), wheeled (bias = -9.7 ± 30.2 min/d, 95% agreement limits = -69.0-49.5 min/d), and non-wheeled (bias =12.3 ± 53.8 min/d, 95% agreement limits = -93.1-117.6 min/d) moderate-vigorous physical activity. The accelerometer was beneficial for detecting intermittent or brief activities while the self-report measure was useful for measuring lifting activities (e.g., resistance training) and wheeling on inclined surfaces.Conclusion: Total and wheeled moderate-vigorous physical activity measured by an accelerometer and a self-report measure showed low agreement at the individual level. Additional research is needed to examine whether physical activity may be best measured using accelerometers and a self-report measure concurrently.Implications for RehabilitationAccurate physical activity measurement has important implications for understanding the relationship between physical activity and health outcomes.Many limitations exist to accurately measuring physical activity in people with spinal cord injury.The most commonly used measures of physical activity in spinal cord injury are accelerometers and the self-reported Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury.Accelerometers and the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury show low levels of agreement, highlighting that there are differences in the specific physical activity patterns that each measure is able to capture.

Assessment of pulmonary restriction in cervical spinal cord injury: a preliminary report.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of pulmonary restriction on the basis of a vital capacity (VC) below the lower limit of normal (LLN) and a normal or high forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1))/VC ratio with the criterion standard of total lung capacity (TLC) less than LLN in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and able-bodied (AB) controls. DESIGN: Method comparison with criterion standard. SETTING: University research center. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with cervical SCI (n=12; injury level, C5-7) and AB controls (n=12) matched for age, stature, and body mass. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: TLC via plethysmography; FEV(1) and VC via spirometry; and maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressures (P(Imax) and P(Emax)). RESULTS: All participants with SCI exhibited a VC less than LLN and a normal-to-high FEV(1)/VC ratio, whereas significantly fewer (8 of 12) participants with SCI exhibited a TLC less than LLN (P=.046). For the AB group, no participant exhibited a VC or TLC less than LLN. Percent-predicted VC was lower than the percent-predicted TLC in SCI (P=.013), whereas percent-predicted VC was higher than percent-predicted TLC in AB controls (P=.001). Percent-predicted P(Imax) was higher than P(Emax) in SCI (P=.001) but not AB controls (P=.146). CONCLUSIONS: A VC less than LLN with a normal-to-high FEV(1)/VC ratio does not accurately predict pulmonary restriction in cervical SCI. When using spirometry to infer pulmonary restriction in cervical SCI, we recommend using a VC below 60% of the AB predicted value.