POS0274-HPR BARRIERS TO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY COLLECTED BY THE IFAB QUESTIONNAIRE CORRELATE WITH LEVELS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS OR SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY OF 150 PATIENTS
Authors: T. Davergne, R. Tekaya, C. Deprouw, J. Sellam, A. Tournadre, S. Mitrovic, A. Ruyssen-Witrand, C. Hudry, S. Dadoun, J. Avouac, B. Fautrel, L. Gossec
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021)

Background: Physical activity is important for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA), such as spondyloarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They are more prone to physical inactivity but derive specific benefits from regular physical activity (1,2). It is not easy to modify physical activity level (3). Barriers and facilitators to physical activity can be assessed through questionnaires (4), however, it is important to demonstrate a link between these explanatory elements and physical activity levels. Objectives: To measure the correlation between barriers and facilitators to physical activity, assessed through a simple questionnaire, and self-reported physical activity levels. Methods: This was an international, multicentric, cross-sectional study performed between October 2019 and June 2020 (ClinicalTrial NCT04426747 ). Consecutive patients were included if they had definite axSpA, RA or PsA, were aged above 18 and able to walk. Barriers and facilitators to physical activity were measured using the 10-item Inflammatory arthritis Facilitators and barriers questionnaire (IFAB) (5). The IFAB ranges -70 to 70 with lower scores indicating more barriers; scores below -5 correspond to significant barriers. Physical activity was measured by the IPAQ-S questionnaire (6). Exploratory analyses used steps per day collected by smartphone, and psychological readiness to change by stages of behavior change. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlation (rho, p&lt;0.05), Student T test or multivariate analysis using R version 3.5.1. There was no imputation of missing data. Results: Of 245 patients included, 150 had analysable data (69 (46%) axSpA, 63 (42%) RA, 18 (12%) PsA). Mean age was 48.6 years (SD 17.1), mean disease duration 11.7 (10.1) years and 60% were women. The mean score of barriers and facilitators to physical activity was 6.0 (SD 19.2, median 4) (Figure 1). A total of 39 (26%) patients scored less than -5, which could justify a targeted intervention. The mean physical activity was 2837 (SD 2668, median 1784) Metabolic Equivalent of Task min per week. Physical activity was correlated with score of barriers and facilitators to physical activity in linear regression (rho 0.28, p&lt;0.001), as well as the stage of behavior change regarding active lifestyle (rho 0.35, p&lt;0.001). No correlation was observed with steps per day (Table 1) Table 1 for abstract: correlation between IFAB questionnaire, each items and level of physical activity with or without extreme values Item Correlation with IPAQ-S min/met/week, rho Correlation with stage of behavior change, rho Correlation with mean steps per day, rho Total IFAB score 0.28 *** 0.35 *** 0.08 Item 1 0.29 *** 0.16 * 0.16 * Item 2 0.06 0.02 0.05 Item 3 0.08 0.16 * 0.01 Item 4 0.13 0.09 -0.07 Item 5 -0.09 0.10 0.07 Item 6 0.22 ** 0.25 *** -0.05 Item 7 0.22 ** 0.20 ** 0.12 Item 8 0.16 * 0.26 *** 0.11 Item 9 0.15 0.33 *** 0.11 Item 10 0.09 0.17 * 0.02 Social support questions 0.14 0.27 *** -0.03 Psychological and knowledge status questions 0.22 ** 0.16 * 0.09 *=P&lt;0.05, **=p&lt;0.01, ***=p&lt;0.001 Conclusion: Perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity are correlated with physical activity. Targeting patients with high barriers and low facilitators to physical activity could be an effective option to improve physical activity levels. References: [1]O’DWYER T., et al. Rheumatology 2014. Vol. 53, n° 10, pp. 1812-1817. [2]OSTHOFF, A et al. 2018. Vol. 77, n° 9, pp. 1251-1260. DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213585. [3]MARLEY, J, et al: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders . 2017. Vol. 18, pp. 482. DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1836-2. [4]COSTE, N., et al. 2019. DOI 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.07.009. [5]DAVERGNE, T, et al. Rheumatology International 2020. DOI 10.1007/s00296-020-04692-4. [6]LEE, PH, et al. 2011. Vol. 8, pp. 115. DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-8-115. Figure 1. Distribution of the IFAB score Footnote: Y axis: effectifs, X axis: IFAB score (possibles values from -70 to 70) Acknowledgements: I have no acknowledgements to declare.We thank the following coinvestigators: Sylvie Rozenberg, Beatrice Banneville, Rachida Inaoui, Emmanuelle Dernis, Athan Baillet and Catherine Beauvais, and we thank Hervé Servy for expert CRO advice Disclosure of Interests: None declared