Session Information
Session Type: ACR Poster Session B
Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM
Background/Purpose:
Primary care (PC) patients have shown significant interest in a community based group strength training (GST) program, especially among those in poor health1. Exercise is known to reduce inflammation, improve symptoms such as fatigue and poor mental health, and has proven benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA) and fibromyalgia (FMS). Group exercise program design improves adherence in PC patients but it is unknown the effect on exercise adherence in rheumatology patients. In this study, we examined the interest of rheumatology patients and the effect of comorbidities in pursuing an organized GST program. We hypothesized that rheumatology patients would be as interested in a GST program compared to a previous study of PC patients.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatology patients from a rheumatology practice in central Pennsylvania in February and April 2017. This survey1, modified for rheumatology patients, assessed self-reported interest of patients in GST programs in addition to demographics, comorbidities, and quality of life measures. Logistic regression was used to quantify interest in a GST. PC data from the study by Sciamanna et al were used for comparative analysis for the primary outcome, interest in a GST program.
Results:
A total of 397 of 656 patients returned surveys with a response rate of 61.6%. Patients had a mean age of 52, 80% were female, with RA (39.0%), FMS (21.4%), and OA (19.7%) as the most common rheumatology diagnoses. 50.1% of rheumatology patients were interested in a GST program and there was no difference of interest compared to the PC patients(X2=2.04, p=0.15). Perceived health was worse in rheumatology patients (45.1%) compared to PC patients (18.8%). However, there was no difference in interest in a GST for rheumatology patients with poor health compared to patients with good health (OR=0.9, p=0.8, Table 1). Female rheumatology patients were more interested in GST than male patients (OR=3.7, p=0.001). Patients with a BMI of 25-30 (OR=2.2, p=0.04) or >30 (OR=1.7, p=0.12) were also more interested compared to those with a normal BMI. There was no difference in interest in GST regardless of rheumatology disease or measured comorbidities.
Conclusion:
Over 50% of rheumatology patients were interested in a GST exercise program design. While rheumatology patients have worse perceived health than published PC health perceptions, interest in GST remained the same. Our data suggests that rheumatologists can recommend GST for their patients regardless of disease, medical comorbidities, perceived mental or physical health or education level. Future studies should examine if a GST program design improves exercise adherence in rheumatology patients.
Reference:
Sciamanna CN et al, A Strength Training Program for Primary Care Patients, Central Pennsylvania, 2012. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:130403.
| Table 1: Association Between Interest in a Group Strength Training Program and Self-Reported Rheumatology Patient Characteristics | |||
| Item | Odds Ratio | Confidence Interval | P-value |
| Age Group | |||
| 18-44 | [reference] | – | – |
| 45-54 | 0.57 | (0.27, 1.23) | 0.15 |
| 55-64 | 1.16 | (0.53, 2.54) | 0.7 |
| ≥65 | 0.8 | (0.33, 1.91) | 0.61 |
| Gender | |||
| Male | [reference] | – | – |
| Female | 3.67 | (1.76, 7.63) | 0.001 |
| Smoking Status | |||
| Non-smoker | [reference] | – | – |
| Smoker | 0.54 | (0.26, 1.12) | 0.1 |
| Hypertension | 1.2 | (0.62, 2.32) | 0.6 |
| Diabetes | 1.63 | (0.63, 4.22) | 0.31 |
| High Cholesterol | 1.11 | (0.58, 2.16) | 0.75 |
| Coronary Artery Disease | 0.9 | (0.27, 2.97) | 0.87 |
| BMI Group | |||
| ≤ 25.0 | [reference] | – | – |
| 25.0-30.0 | 2.18 | (1.05, 4.52) | 0.04 |
| > 30 | 1.72 | (0.87, 3.41) | 0.12 |
| Days of Aerobic Activity/Week | |||
| 0 | [reference] | – | – |
| 1-3 | 0.83 | (0.44, 1.56) | 0.56 |
| 4-7 | 1.63 | (0.74, 3.58) | 0.23 |
| Days of Strength Training/Week | |||
| 0 | [reference] | – | – |
| 1-3 | 1.57 | (0.83, 2.97) | 0.17 |
| 4-7 | 0.3 | (0.12, 0.76) | 0.01 |
| Self-Reported Health | |||
| Excellent, Very Good, or Good | [reference] | – | – |
| Fair or Poor | 0.92 | (0.48, 1.76) | 0.8 |
| Days of Poor Physical Health/Month | |||
| 0 | [reference] | – | – |
| 1-9 | 1.84 | (0.74, 4.56) | 0.19 |
| ≥ 10 | 2.16 | (0.87, 5.37) | 0.1 |
| Days of Poor Mental Health/Month | |||
| 0 | [reference] | – | – |
| 1-9 | 1.15 | (0.56, 2.36) | 0.7 |
| ≥ 10 | 1.06 | (0.50, 2.25) | 0.88 |
To cite this abstract in AMA style:
Rhie K, Feger D, Banks S, Sciamanna C, June RR. Group Strength Training in Rheumatology Patients: Results of an Exercise Survey [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/group-strength-training-in-rheumatology-patients-results-of-an-exercise-survey/. Accessed .« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/group-strength-training-in-rheumatology-patients-results-of-an-exercise-survey/