FRI0734-HPR Physical activity and aerobic capacity assessment – a survey among rheumatology health professionals in four european countries.
Authors: N. Kennedy, S.G. McKenna, A. O'Neill, B.A. Esbensen, T. Swinnen, B. Nordgren, S. Willemijns, N. Hammer, N. Brodin
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2018)

<h3>Background:</h3> Regular physical activity (PA) is associated with improvements in health outcomes, such as quality of life, aerobic fitness, pain, stiffness and inflammation in people with inflammatory joint disease (IJD) (1,2). Current practice in the management of patients with inflammatory arthritis emphasises the importance of health professionals (HP's) in assessing PA and aerobic capacity. <h3>Objectives:</h3> The objectives of this study were to identify how HPs working with IJDs measure PA and aerobic capacity. <h3>Methods:</h3> Rheumatology HPs in Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and Belgium participated in an online survey. Descriptive statistics was undertaken (SPSS v21and SASv9.4) to describe data aggregates and range and to identify sub-classes of groups with respect to use of PA measures. <h3>Results:</h3> Three hundred and twenty two (n=322, 75% female) HPs responded from Denmark (n=50, 15.5%), Sweden (n=66, 20.5%), Ireland (n=28, 8.7%), and Belgium (n=178, 55.3%). The majority of respondents (n=286, 92%) reported it was important to measure PA in people with IJDs. The mean number of years qualified was 20.08 (SD 9.37) and years working in Rheumatology was 12.29 (SD 8.27), with 32.3% reporting half of their workload coming from people who have inflammatory arthritis. Only 28.2% of HPs used simple body worn sensors to measure PA levels in their patients. Moderate levels of confidence were reported in using a simple body-worn sensor (mean 6.15/10; SD 3.63) and paper questionnaire (6.85/10; SD 3.62) to measure PA, with lower levels of confidence in using a complex body-worn sensor (3.80/10; SD 3.55) and digital diary (4.22/10; SD 3.67). When assessing aerobic capacity 58% were very familiar/somewhat familiar using a bicycle ergometer, 44% a treadmill and 56% other aerobic capacity tests. Low levels of confidence were reported in instructing their patients in performing aerobic capacity tests (4.54/10; SD 3.74) and in interpreting the results (4.79/10; SD 3.58). A large majority were interested in further education around measuring PA (83%) and aerobic capacity measurement (74%), with an online module favoured for both. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> The majority of respondents reported that they considered measuring PA as important in people with IJDs; however, the majority lacked confidence in how to measure it. There is strong interest in further education around measuring PA. <h3>References</h3> 1. Stavropoulos-Kalinoglou A, Metsios GS, Veldhuijzen van Zanten JJ, et al. Individualised aerobic and resistance exercise training improves cardiorespiratory fitness and reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis2013;72(11):1819–25. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202075 2. Hurkmans E, van der Giesen FJ, Vliet Vlieland TP, et al. Dynamic exercise programs (aerobic capacity and/or muscle strength training) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009;(4):CD006853. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006853.pub2 <h3>Acknowledgements:</h3> This study was funded by the EULAR Health Professionals Research Grant 2015 <h3>Disclosure of Interest:</h3> None declared