Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 10, 2025

Determining Pain Detection and Tolerance Thresholds Using an Integrated, Multi-Modal Pain Task Battery
Published on: April 14, 2016
Testing a newly developed activity pacing framework for chronic pain/fatigue: a feasibility study
Deborah Antcliff1,2, Anne-Maree Keenan2,3, Philip Keeley4
1Department of Physiotherapy, Fairfield General Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Group, Bury, UK Deborah.Antcliff@nca.nhs.uk.
Objectives:
To test the feasibility of using a new activity pacing framework to standardise healthcare professionals' instructions of pacing, and explore whether measures of activity pacing/symptoms detected changes following treatment.
Design:
Single-arm, repeated measures study.
Setting:
One National Health Service (NHS) Pain Service in Northern England, UK.
Participants:
Adult patients with chronic pain/fatigue, including chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Interventions:
Six-week rehabilitation programme, standardised using the activity pacing framework.
Outcome Measures:
Feasibility was explored via patients' recruitment/attrition rates, adherence and satisfaction, and healthcare professionals' fidelity. Questionnaire data were collected from patients at the start and end of the programme (T1 and T2, respectively) and 3 months' follow-up (T3). Questionnaires included measures of activity pacing, current/usual pain, physical/mental fatigue, depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, avoidance, physical/mental function and quality of life. Mean changes in activity pacing and symptoms between T1-T2, T2-T3 and T1-T3 were estimated.
Results:
Of the 139 eligible patients, 107 patients consented (recruitment rate=77%); 65 patients completed T2 (T1-T2 attrition rate=39%), and 52 patients completed T3 (T1-T3 attrition rate=51%). At T2, patients' satisfaction ratings averaged 9/10, and 89% attended ≥5 rehabilitation programme sessions. Activity pacing and all symptoms improved between T1 and T2, with smaller improvements maintained at T3.
Conclusion:
The activity pacing framework was feasible to implement and patients' ability to pace and manage their symptoms improved. Future work will employ a suitable comparison group and test the framework across wider settings to explore the effects of activity pacing in a randomised controlled trial.
Trial Registration Number:
NCT03497585.

