Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Association Between Physical Activity and Sleep in Adults With Chronic Pain: A Momentary, Within-Person Perspective

Nicole E. Andrews, Jenny Strong, Pamela J. Meredith, Rachel G. D'Arrigo
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130302 Published 1 April 2014
Nicole E. Andrews
N.E. Andrews, OT, BOccThy(Hons), Department of Occupational Therapy and Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia, and Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. Mailing address: Occupational Therapy Department, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Level 2, James Mayne Building, Herston, Queensland, Australia, 4029.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenny Strong
J. Strong, OT, BOccThy, MOccThy, PhD, Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pamela J. Meredith
P.J. Meredith, OT, BOccThy, BSc, BA(Hons), PhD, Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel G. D'Arrigo
R.G. D'Arrigo, OT, BOccThy(Hons), Division of Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Individuals with chronic pain consider improved sleep to be one of the most important outcomes of treatment. Physical activity has been shown to have beneficial effects on sleep in the general population. Despite these findings, the physical activity–sleep relationship has not been directly examined in a sample of people with chronic pain.

Objective This study aimed to examine the association between objective daytime physical activity and subsequent objective sleep for individuals with chronic pain while controlling for pain and psychosocial variables.

Design An observational, prospective, within-person study design was used.

Methods A clinical sample of 50 adults with chronic pain was recruited. Participation involved completing a demographic questionnaire followed by 5 days of data collection. Over this period, participants wore a triaxial accelerometer to monitor their daytime activity and sleep. Participants also carried a handheld computer that administered a questionnaire measuring pain, mood, catastrophizing, and stress 6 times throughout the day.

Results The results demonstrated that higher fluctuations in daytime activity significantly predicted shorter sleep duration. Furthermore, higher mean daytime activity levels and a greater number of pain sites contributed significantly to the prediction of longer periods of wakefulness at night.

Limitations The small sample size used in this study limits the generalizability of the findings. Missing data may have led to overestimations or underestimations of effect sizes, and additional factors that may be associated with sleep (eg, medication usage, environmental factors) were not measured.

Conclusions The results of this study suggest that engagement in high-intensity activity and high fluctuations in activity are associated with poorer sleep at night; hence, activity modulation may be a key treatment strategy to address sleep complaints in individuals with chronic pain.

Sleep disturbance is common in people with chronic pain, with 50% to 90% of this population reporting poor sleep.1–5 Poor sleep in the general population has been shown to have a significant impact on daily function, including considerable daytime cognitive dysfunction, decreased ability to accomplish daily tasks, diminished sense of success and achievement, depressed mood, and reduced enjoyment of interpersonal relationships.6–8 A comprehensive multicenter study has revealed that individuals with chronic pain consider improved sleep to be one of the most important outcomes of treatment.9

Current educational materials recommend sleep hygiene and treatments aimed at addressing negative thoughts, mood, and stress, including relaxation therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), as nonpharmacological options to address sleep complaints in individuals with chronic pain.10–13 Sleep hygiene involves increasing awareness of and altering lifestyle (eg, substance use, exercise, diet), environmental (eg, light, temperature, noise), and sleep-related behavioral factors (eg, regularity of sleep schedules, presleep activities) that affect sleep quality.14 Sleep programs incorporating a combination of sleep hygiene education, relaxation training, and CBT have been shown to be effective at increasing self-reported sleep quality in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain15 and in individuals with comorbid insomnia and osteoarthritis.16 In addition, Edinger and colleagues17 found that 6 weekly individual sessions of either sleep hygiene or CBT resulted in a reduction of nocturnal wake time in a group of patients with fibromyalgia. In their study, CBT was shown to be more effective than sleep hygiene at decreasing wake time (50% versus 20% reduction, respectively). Engagement in “daytime activity and exercise” or “moderate regular exercise” was recommended as part of the sleep hygiene education in the aforementioned studies. Promoting exercise engagement as a core component of sleep hygiene interventions is based on the premise that inactivity adversely affects sleep quality.14

Research with nonclinical samples does support the notion that inactivity is associated with poor sleep (see reviews18–20). Studies have shown that both short-term and long-term engagement in exercise increase total sleep time, prolong slow wave sleep, and decrease sleep onset latency in the general population.18,19 A negative association has been found between insomnia and physical activity in studies worldwide, and exercise has been shown to be as effective as hypnotic medication in decreasing sleep complaints.20

Despite these findings, the physical activity–sleep relationship has been largely ignored in chronic pain literature. To our knowledge, there are no published outcome studies that have investigated the effect of exercise or physical activity interventions on sleep disturbance in chronic pain. Only one research study has considered the association between levels of physical activity and sleep disturbance.21 In this study, objective measures of sleep and activity were used to demonstrate that a group of patients with chronic pain had more disturbed sleep compared with pain-free participants who had similar daytime activity levels.21 These results hint at the possibility that high activity levels may be associated with sleep disturbance in individuals with chronic pain. As this relationship appears to contradict current recommendations made in chronic pain educational materials, where increasing physical activity and exercise is endorsed, the empirical investigation of the direct relationship between physical activity and sleep in chronic pain is warranted.

The aim of this study, therefore, was to use a within-persons study design to examine the association between objective daytime physical activity and subsequent objective sleep for individuals with chronic pain. Furthermore, this study aimed to control for pain and psychosocial variables, including mood,4,22,23 stress,22,23 and pain catastrophizing,24 which have been associated with different aspects of sleep in cross-sectional studies utilizing samples of individuals with chronic pain. Based on existing evidence on this topic, we hypothesized that daytime activity levels would be associated with aspects of objective sleep, including sleep duration and average nocturnal awake time, after controlling for pain and psychosocial variables. No prediction was made about the direction of this relationship due to the lack of evidence on the direct relationship between physical activity and sleep in chronic pain.

Materials and Method

Participants

A sample of 50 adult patients was recruited from a multidisciplinary pain center (MPC) located in a large tertiary hospital in Australia. Inclusion criteria were: (1) outpatient of the MPC, (2) persistent non-cancer-related pain for at least 3 months, (3) generalized pain distribution affecting the participant's gross movement (ie, gross movement patterns increase the participant's pain), (4) English literate, (5) 18 years of age or older, (6) residing in the metropolitan area where the MPC is located, and (7) able to provide written informed consent. An exclusion criterion was diagnosis of a sleep disorder (eg, sleep apnea or restless legs syndrome) that was symptomatic at the time of data collection. As the activity monitors used in this study measure an individual's gross movement, only individuals who had generalized pain in body parts associated with gross movement (ie, the lower limbs or torso, or both) were recruited. The presence of pain in body parts associated with gross movement was assessed by the treating team that referred patients to the study and resulted in the exclusion of patients with pain isolated to the upper limbs, head, and face. Sixty-three patients were invited to participate in the study, with 13 declining due to other commitments, resulting in a sample size of 50 (79.4%). Demographic information is reported in Tables 1 and 2. Participants were predominantly female, married, Australian, and unemployed due to pain, with an age range of 33 to 73 years. The majority of participants reported having pain for an extended period of time (X̅=13.04 years) and numerous pain sites (X̅=5.94). The main pain complaint was lower back pain (74%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Descriptive Information of Demographic Categorical Variables

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Descriptive Information of Demographic Continuous Variables

Procedure

Over an 18-month period, patients meeting the selection criteria were identified by medical or allied health staff at the MPC. The study was explained to patients verbally, and written informed consent was obtained. Participants then completed a demographic questionnaire prior to commencing 5 days of data collection. This 5-day data collection period included at least 1 weekend day. Over the 5 days, participants wore an activity monitor and were given a Palm handheld computer (Palm Inc, Sunnyvale, California), with installed software, that administered an electronic questionnaire 6 times a day. Participants recorded the time they went to bed and the time they got out of bed each day in a diary. On completion of data collection, each participant received a $20 gift voucher for use in popular retail stores in Australia.

Measures

Demographic information.

A demographic form collected data on sex, age, pain location, number of pain sites, pain duration, marital status, level of education, and employment status.

Electronic questionnaire.

The experience sampling method, which involves responding to questionnaires on multiple occasions over a period of time, was used to measure pain, mood, stress, and catastrophizing. This method has been confirmed as a valid and reliable method for gathering data on an individual's experience and psychological state, which allows for the examination of within-person real-time associations.25,26 In this study, pain, mood, stress, and catastrophizing were measured 6 times a day over the 5-day data collection period using an electronic questionnaire. Both the average scores for each day and the final response score from each day prior to sleep onset, for each variable (pain, mood, stress, and catastrophizing), were used in analyses. The electronic questionnaire that measured these constructs was developed by the researchers with the Experience Sampling Program,27 which was installed on 8 Palm handheld computers (m100, Zire and Tungsten series). The Experience Sampling Program is an open-source software package for running questionnaires on a Palm Pilot that displays questions, receives responses, and records reaction times. The program was configured to alert participants at random intervals 6 times during their waking hours to respond to the custom-made electronic questionnaire.

Table 3 contains details of the electronic questionnaire programmed on the Palm handheld computers. All items were measured on a 10-point horizontal visual analog scale (VAS). Studies using the experience sampling method in pain research commonly use single items or a reduced set of items from established questionnaires to measure constructs.28–30 In this study, pain, mood, and stress were assessed with single items. The single-item VAS for pain and mood have both been shown to have adequate validity.31,32

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Details of Electronic Questionnaire

Catastrophizing was measured with 3 items representing each subscale of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (ie, rumination, magnification, and helplessness).33 The 3 items were chosen based on: (1) item-total correlations from the original factor analysis of the scale,33 (2) standardized path coefficients (the square root of the percentage of variance in the item accounted for by the latent construct) from a confirmatory factor analysis using a chronic pain sample,34 and (3) authors' agreement of the single best item that represents each of the 3 Pain Catastrophizing Scale subscales. All items chosen had item-total correlations and standardized path coefficients that were ranked highly (first or second) in their respective subscale. A total catastrophizing score was calculated by adding the 3 responses. The total catastrophizing score and scores from the individual subscales (ie, rumination, magnification, and helplessness) were considered in the analyses. Empirical evidence has been supportive of the reliability and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale,33,35–37 and one-item versions of other commonly used subscales of pain-related coping have been shown to be highly correlated to the parent subscale.38

Activity monitor.

The GT3X ActiGraph activity monitor (ActiGraph, Pensacola, Florida) was chosen to objectively measure sleep and daytime physical activity as actigraphy has been shown to be a practical and reliable measure of these constructs. It is effective in differentiating among various physical and sedentary activities in adults who are healthy and correlates significantly with oxygen uptake and heart rate.39 A study investigating the feasibility of actigraphy in home-based settings showed that it is easily utilized and well tolerated by participants.40 It is favored over self-report measures for quantitative assessment of physical activity in chronic pain,41 as it does not rely on patient recall. Also, compared with polysomnography, a gold standard objective sleep measure, actigraphy is a valid and reliable measure for differentiating sleep from wake in adults who are healthy (see review42).

Participants were required to wear the GT3X ActiGraph activity monitor during both sleeping and waking hours and to remove it only for showering and swimming over the 5-day data collection period. The activity monitor incorporates a triaxial accelerometer that collects changes in acceleration, 30 times each second, across 3 axes (vertical, horizontal, and perpendicular).43 The device translates this movement into a digital code that is stored in computerized form.43 In this study, activity counts per minute were recorded for each axis. This measure equates to the accumulation of filtered changes in acceleration measured during a 60-second period.43 The vector magnitude per minute (calculation of the magnitude of the vector that forms when combining activity counts per minute from all 3 axes) was then used to calculate physical activity variables. The vector magnitude per minute can be interpreted as the intensity of physical activity carried out over the course of a minute.43

Two activity variables were calculated and used in the analyses: average daytime physical activity and fluctuations in physical activity. Average daytime physical activity was calculated by finding the average vector magnitude per minute between the time participants got out of bed and when they went to bed, as indicated in their diary. Higher levels of average daytime physical activity indicated engagement in higher-intensity activities throughout the day. Engagement in high-intensity activities is a characteristic of overactivity in chronic pain.44–46 The term “overactivity” refers to engagement in high levels of activity that result in severe pain aggravation and a period of inactivity where an individual is unable to function.45 Individuals who engage in overactivity will resume daily tasks following inactive periods once their pain has subsided or frustration over inactivity stimulates new activity.47 As a result, individuals who engage in overactivity are thought to have a “sawtooth” activity pattern where their pain and activity fluctuate greatly over time.44,46 In order to capture this activity pattern, the fluctuation in daytime physical activity was calculated. The fluctuation value for each participant was obtained by adding the vector magnitude per minute over 15-minute periods from the time participants got out of bed to the time they went to bed on a given day.

Next, the difference among these 15-minute periods was found by subtracting the value for each 15-minute time period from that of the 15-minute time period directly before it. The root mean square of these difference values was then calculated to express the magnitude of these differences. This calculation was done by squaring each score, calculating the mean difference value, and taking the square root from this mean value. This method for calculating fluctuations in physical activity has been used in previous studies.47–50 Higher values indicate greater fluctuations in activity levels throughout the day. The last 15 minutes of each day was not included in calculations if a full 15 minutes of daytime activity recording was not available.

Sleep measures were generated with ActiLife software version 4.4.1 (ActiGraph), using the sleep scoring function. This function uses the Sadeh algorithm,51 which determines an individual's sleep state by examining the actigraph activity over an 11-minute sliding window.43 For any given window, a “sleep score” (whether the person is asleep or not) can be determined by applying the algorithm. Time in bed and time out of bed, as indicated in each participant's diary, were entered in order to calculate sleep scores. The following variables were then generated using the sleep scoring function: (1) sleep duration—the total number of minutes the algorithm indicates “asleep,” (2) number of awakenings—the number of different times the algorithm scores “awake,” (3) average awake time—the number of minutes the algorithm indicates “awake” divided by number of awakenings, and (4) sleep efficiency—sleep duration divided by total time in bed.43 The Sadeh algorithm has also been shown to have agreement rates with polysomnography scoring ranging between 91% and 93%.51 Table 4 reports the descriptive statistics for activity and sleep variables.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4.

Descriptive Information of Continuous Experimental Variables

Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) GradPack version 18.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois) provided advanced analytical techniques, including generalized linear mixed modeling, which was used to analyze the results of this study. Generalized linear mixed models cover a wide variety of modeling, including multilevel models. In this study, multilevel modeling was applied to examine both within-person and between-persons variance in sleep measures.

Three levels of data were collected in this study (time points nested within a day nested within a person). Time point data resulted from the electronic questionnaire, which was administered 6 times a day. The data were arranged so that the average scores and the final response score from each day could be examined in relation to subsequent sleep that night. This process resulted in a 2-level hierarchical structure with daily observations and responses nested within individuals. Measurements of sleep, activity, pain, mood, stress, and catastrophizing were collected each day for all individuals and were defined as response-level, or level 1, variables. Demographic variables are variables that were considered stable across the 5 days of data collection. As such, data for these variables were collected on one occasion for each individual and were defined as person-level, or level 2, variables.

A series of 2-level hierarchical linear regression analyses were produced to examine significant predictors of sleep. When applied to the data structure used in this study, at the first level of this analysis, coefficients were estimated for an equation within each person that expresses sleep variables as a function of response-level variables for that person. Individual parameter estimates then become the dependent variables in level 2 equations that model how the relationship between level 1 variables and sleep variables varies among people. The effects of person-level variables are estimated at this level.26

A sample size of 5 was used at level 1 (ie, 5 records for each response level variable per person relating to the 5 days of data collection), and a sample size of 50 (ie, 50 participants) was used at level 2. This procedure resulted in a total sample of 250 (maximum) records. Estimating the sample size required for the analyses undertaken was complicated given the multiple levels and parameters of interest.52 As no data from similar studies were available to estimate values needed for power calculations, an accurate estimate of sample size could not be determined prior to data collection.52–54 Simulation research, using the same modeling as that produced in this study, suggests that the sample size at level 2 has a greater impact on increasing power than the sample size at level 1, with level 2 sample sizes greater than 30 having a minimal impact on the accuracy of the standard error for fixed effects.52–56 As estimates of fixed effects were the primary interest of this research, a sample size of 50 participants at level 2 was chosen.

A data screen was conducted prior to the analyses to detect the most appropriate covariates to include in models in order to reduce multicollinearity. This screen was done by computing Pearson correlation analyses on level 1 variables (response level variables) to examine the strength and direction of relationships. The strength of correlations between the catastrophizing subscales (ie, magnification, rumination, and helplessness) and the total catastrophizing scores was strong, and the correlation coefficients between these variables and sleep variables were comparable. Therefore, only the total catastrophizing scores were used in further analyses. Overall, visual comparisons of associations among the average daytime scores for pain, mood, total catastrophizing, and stress generally suggested stronger correlations with sleep variables compared with the final response of that day for these variables. As a result, final daytime responses prior to sleep onset were discarded, and average daytime scores were retained.

The final dataset was assessed for normality, linearity, constant variance, and outliers. Five variables with multiple outliers were identified: number of awakenings, average daytime physical activity, fluctuations in daytime physical activity, average daytime total catastrophizing, and pain duration. For number of awakenings, 9 of the identified outliers were determined to be secondary to data error and, therefore, were deleted. The remaining outliers were thoroughly reviewed, and deletion was not justified. Seven significantly skewed variables were detected. Number of awakenings, average awake time, average daytime total catastrophizing, average daytime physical activity, number of pain sites, and pain duration were positively skewed, and sleep efficiency was negatively skewed. Box-Cox transformation is a procedure that identifies the most appropriate exponent to use to transform data into a normal shape and, as such, was used to transform skewed variables. Sleep efficiency could not be transformed to a normal distribution and, therefore, was not included in the analyses, as normality of the dependent variable is one of the assumptions of the models produced.57

The data also were assessed to identify any patterns to missing data. If more than 2 hours of data were missing on a given day or night due to removal of the ActiGraph, activity data for that day or night were considered invalid and classified as missing. On inspection, there was no observable pattern to the missing data. In addition, a series of independent-sample t tests were conducted using a dummy coded variable for missing data and level 1 variables as dependent variables. There was no difference between the means of the 2 groups for any of the level 1 variables in these analyses. As such, missing data resulted in exclusion of that case from the analyses. The amount of data missing for each variable is presented in Tables 1, 2, and 4. A significance level of .05 was set for statistical tests. As recommended by Streiner and Norman,58 a correction was not used to account for multiple analyses due to the exploratory nature of this study. If a Bonferroni correction were used, the significance level would be reduced to .017.

Three 2-level hierarchical linear regression models were produced, with 1 of the 3 sleep variables (sleep duration, average awake time, or number of awakenings) entered as dependent variables. All independent variables were first centered before being entered into the models to ensure interpretable and meaningful zero points. As the primary interest of this study was to examine the predictive influence of response-level variables, level 1 variables were group mean centered (scores were deducted from the person's mean score for that variable), and level 2 variables were grand mean centered (scores were deducted from the sample mean) to produce unbiased estimates of beta (β) at level 1.59 Level 1 variables that were entered into models were: sleep duration of the previous night, average daytime physical activity, fluctuations in daytime physical activity, average daytime total catastrophizing, average daytime mood, and average daytime stress. Patient demographics, including age, sex, pain duration, and number of pain sites, were the level 2 variables entered. Residuals from each analysis were saved, and normality assumptions were examined. R2 change values of significant independent variables were then calculated. This calculation was done by individually removing a significant variable from each model and examining the resultant change in covariance parameters, as described by Heck and colleagues.60 The removed variable was replaced prior to the removal of another significant variable.

Role of the Funding Source

The equipment used in the study was funded by the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre. Ms Andrews was supported by a Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation scholarship, an Occupational Therapy Board of Queensland Novice Researcher Grant, and the Cramond Fellowship in Occupational Therapy and Pain Management at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.

Results

The results of the analyses are presented in Table 5 and are discussed below. The residuals were approximately normally distributed in all models, meeting the assumptions of linear regression.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5.

Two-Level Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Variables Predicting Sleep

Variables Predicting Sleep Duration

Fluctuations in daytime physical activity made a significant contribution to the prediction of sleep duration (β=−.0002, t81.36=−2.05, P=.04, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=−0.0004 to −0.000006). The results suggested that greater changes in activity levels throughout the day were linked to a reduced amount of sleep at night. Fluctuation in daytime physical activity accounted for about 3% of the variability in sleep duration within individuals. None of the other experimental or demographic variables made a significant contribution to explaining the variation in sleep duration.

Variables Predicting Average Awake Time

Two variables predicted average awake time: average daytime physical activity and number of pain sites. For average daytime physical activity (β=.29, t88.84=2.09, P=.04, 95% CI=0.0015 to 0.06), individuals who engaged in higher-intensity activities throughout the day spent more time awake when lying in bed at night. For number of pain sites (β=.28, t30.53=2.40, P=.02, 95% CI=0.04 to 0.52), individuals who reported a greater number of pain sites had longer periods of wakefulness at night. The R2 change values indicated that average daytime physical activity accounted for about 3% of the variability within individuals and approximately 2% of the variance among individuals for average awake time. Number of pain sites had a large effect on average awake time, explaining approximately 19% of the variance among individuals.

Variables Predicting Number of Awakenings

Participants' sex was the only variable to make a significant contribution to number of awakenings (β=−.48, t27.25=−2.61, P=.02, 95% CI=−0.86 to −0.10), with female participants waking more often during the night compared with male participants. Participants' sex accounted for about 36% of the variability in number of awakenings among individuals.

Exploring Sex Differences

As participants' sex made a large contribution to explaining the between-persons variance in number of awakenings, further analyses were undertaken to explore differences in sex with the objective of providing further insight into this relationship. A series of independent t tests were conducted to examine whether demographic and experimental variables differed significantly with sex. Female participants tended to have higher average daytime pain (X̅=5.54, SD=2.03, t233=−3.14, P=.01, 95% CI=−1.37 to −.37) and higher average daytime stress (X̅=3.58, SD=2.18, t233=−2.2, P≤.001, 95% CI=−0.77 to −0.04) compared with male participants (X̅=4.67, SD=2.03, and X̅=3.08, SD=2.5, respectively). In addition, female participants reported a higher number of pain sites (X̅=7.53, SD=5.29, t47=−2.13 P=.04, 95% CI=−6.05 to −0.17) and higher mean activity levels throughout the day (X̅=39.00, SD=10.94, t206=−2.3, P=.03, 95% CI=−6.51 to −0.43) compared with male participants (X̅=4.42, SD=4.44, and X̅=35.53, SD=10.56, respectively).

Discussion

The present study utilized an innovative ambulatory monitoring product and a within-person study design to examine the association between objective daytime physical activity and subsequent objective sleep for individuals with chronic pain while controlling for pain and psychosocial variables. The association between physical activity and sleep in chronic pain had not been directly examined, and this was the first study to use a within-person design to examine the association between daytime psychosocial variables and subsequent sleep in individuals with chronic pain. The application of a prospective within-person design and activity monitoring increased the reliability and validity of findings by: (1) objectively measuring the association between activity and sleep; (2) allowing for the measurement and documentation of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as they occurred; (3) allowing the examination of the relationship between these factors and subsequent sleep; and (4) providing estimates of both within-person and between-persons variability in sleep.

The results indicate that objective daytime activity does predict subsequent objective sleep in adults with chronic pain above and beyond measures of daytime pain intensity, catastrophizing, stress, and mood. Higher mean daytime activity levels (indicative of engagement in higher-intensity activities throughout the day) predicted longer periods of wakefulness at night both within and among individuals. In addition, fluctuations in daytime activity was a significant predictor of sleep duration, with higher fluctuations (greater changes in activity levels from one 15-minute period to the next) linked to a shorter sleep duration within individuals. These results support the inclusion of activity modulation interventions as treatment options to address sleep complaints in individuals with chronic pain. In line with findings from previous cross-sectional studies,23,61,62 participants' sex and number of pain sites also explained the variance in different aspects of sleep among individuals. Sex accounted for a large proportion of the variability in number of awakenings in this study, with female participants waking more frequently than male participants. Female participants in this study reported a higher number of pain sites and had higher mean activity levels, which might explain some of the variance. Possible explanations for the association between activity variables and sleep are discussed below.

Both high fluctuations in activity and engagement in high-intensity activities are characteristics of overactivity.44–46 As defined previously, overactivity refers to engagement in high levels of activity, resulting in severe pain aggravation.45 During the pain exacerbation, the individual experiences a period of inactivity and resumes activity once pain has subsided or frustration over inactivity stimulates new activity.45,47 These findings represent a “sawtooth” pain and activity pattern where activity and pain fluctuate greatly over time.44,46 Both pacing education and activity scheduling are common interventions to address patterns of overactivity in individuals with chronic pain.63 Pacing is a strategy used to divide a person's daily activities into smaller, more manageable portions, which allows the individual to participate in activities in a way that should not exacerbate his or her pain while facilitating planned and calculated increases of activity.46,63 High fluctuations in daytime activity may reflect incidences of overactivity or the use of an ineffective pacing strategy (ie, using prolonged rest periods).

One possible explanation for the associations between activity variables and sleep is that pain exacerbations, caused by overactivity, led to poorer sleep at night due to increased pain at the end of the day and at night. A delayed exacerbation in pain following a period of concentrated physical activity has been demonstrated in chronic back pain research,64 and the data screen in this study showed a positive correlation that approached significance between the last pain report prior to sleep (which was measured at a random time point in relation to sleep onset) and both mean daytime activity and fluctuations in daytime activity (r=.12, P=.10, and r=.13, P=.06, respectively). Although average daytime pain was not associated with subsequent objective sleep in this study or in previous research,65,66 higher fluctuations in pain levels during the day (suggestive of pain exacerbations) have been shown to predict large fluctuations in nighttime activity.65 A carefully designed time-series mediation analysis investigating the associations among activity, subsequent pain levels, and the succeeding sleep period is needed to further explore this notion.

Links between activity and sleep may be further explained by individual differences in coping. Individuals who engage in overactivity persist with activity despite pain and usually attempt to ignore pain and use distraction as a coping strategy.67,68 Subsequently, they may be more aware of their pain or daily stresses while lying in bed at night due to limited distractions, which, in turn, may affect sleep. A study that looked at the diurnal variation of pain perception in patients with chronic pain supports the notion that engagement in work and productive tasks can distract individuals from their pain.69 The authors found that patients who worked reported less pain during working hours, but their pain escalated when they returned home. In contrast, participants who stayed at home reported pain levels that rose at the start of the day but remained relatively stable thereafter.69 Individuals who engage in overactivity also may wake early to attend to productive tasks in the morning, resulting in shorter sleep duration.

Modification of sleep physiology may provide an alternate explanation for the observed results. To date, there is no evidence of links between fluctuations in daytime activity and sleep, with either nonclinical or chronic pain samples. As such, the physiological effect of high fluctuations in daytime activity on the normal sleep cycle is unknown. Physical activity has been shown to exert an influence on sleep physiology by altering endocrine and metabolic functions during sleep.70 Alterations of these functions through habitual changes in activity pattern may alter the sleep-wake cycle.70 Hence, links between activity and reduced sleep duration in this study may have been influenced by these mechanisms.

Various considerations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings of the present study. Participants had generalized pain in body parts associated with gross movement, which limits the ability to generalize the results of this study to individuals with other types of pain. In addition, all participants were sourced from a tertiary pain clinic and were selected by medical and allied health staff, thus introducing selection bias and potentially affecting the external validity of the study. A retrospective power analysis conducted using Power Analysis in Two-Level Designs (PinT) software,71 after accounting for missing data, revealed that the study's sample size has adequate power (>80%) to detect a moderate effect size for independent variables in the models produced. Nevertheless, the study sample size (N=50) may limit the generalizability of findings. In addition, missing data may have led to overestimations or underestimations of effect sizes. Producing 3 models increases the chance of making a type I error, and the precision of estimates for significant level 2 variables was low. As a result, the results of this study warrant replication. Furthermore, a self-report measure of sleep quality was not administered in this study to validate objective sleep measures and provide insight into an individual's perception of sleep quality. Inclusion of such a measure would strengthen future studies. As measures of pain and psychosocial variables relied on participants' self-reports, social desirability responding also existed. Finally, a number of additional factors that may be associated with sleep, such as menopausal symptoms, medication usage, and environmental factors (eg, exposure to light or noise), were not considered in this study.

Despite these limitations, the results of this study offer the first empirical evidence that objective daytime activity is associated with subsequent objective sleep in adults with chronic pain above and beyond measures of daytime pain intensity, catastrophizing, stress, and mood. This finding is important because educational material currently recommends sleep hygiene and treatments aimed at addressing negative thoughts, mood, and stress, including relaxation therapy and CBT, as nonpharmacological options to address sleep complaints in individuals with chronic pain.10–13 Reference to recommendations for physical activity in these publications is absent or limited to “engagement in daytime activity and exercise” as part of the sleep hygiene education. These recommendations are based on evidence that supports the association between increased physical activity or exercise and improved sleep quality in the general population.18–20

The results of this study suggest that when individuals with chronic pain engage in high-intensity activity and have high fluctuations in their activity throughout the day, they experience poorer sleep (ie, a shorter sleep duration and longer periods of wakefulness) at night. These results do not negate the beneficial effects of all types of exercise for sleep in this population or imply that inactivity should be promoted, but do suggest that engagement in high-intensity exercise that may severely aggravate pain is detrimental. As such, recommending increased daytime physical activity and exercise that are unguided and not supervised as part of sleep programs in this population may be insufficient and could be contraindicated. Given the observed associations in this study, activity modulation may be a key treatment strategy in addressing sleep complaints in individuals with chronic pain. Introducing pacing education, activity scheduling, and guided exercise sessions (based on graded activity principles46) into sleep programs for individuals with chronic pain may be of value. There are also potential benefits from incorporating education on the effects of overactivity on sleep into pain education programs. Finally, activity monitors may be beneficially applied to clinical practice to monitor activity levels and sleep, which would assist with individually tailored treatment.

Future research should focus on replicating the results of this study while controlling for additional variables such as medication usage. Using self-report measures of sleep also would provide insight into individuals' perceptions of sleep quality, which would be of value clinically. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the relationship between activity levels and sleep in chronic pain. Research investigating the effects of activity on sleep physiology, and possible moderators or mediators of the relationship between daytime activity and sleep, is warranted to continue to improve treatment strategies.

The Bottom Line

What do we already know about this topic?

Fifty percent to 90% of people with chronic pain report sleep disturbances, and improved sleep is considered to be one of the most important outcomes of treatment for this population. Physical activity has been shown to have beneficial effects on sleep in the general population, but the relationship between physical activity and sleep has not been directly examined in a population with chronic pain.

What new information does this study offer?

The results of this study indicate that daytime activity does predict subsequent sleep in adults with chronic pain above and beyond measures of daytime pain intensity, catastrophizing, stress, and mood. The results suggest that when people with chronic pain engage in high-intensity activity and have high fluctuations in their activity throughout the day, they experience poorer sleep at night.

If you're a patient/caregiver, what might these findings mean for you?

Given the observed associations in this study, activity modulation may be a key treatment strategy in addressing sleep problems in people with chronic pain. Interventions such as pacing education, activity scheduling, and guided exercise sessions may have a beneficial effect on sleep quality.

Footnotes

  • All authors provided concept/idea/research design and writing. Ms Andrews provided data collection. Both Ms Andrews and Ms D'Arrigo provided data analysis. The authors acknowledge Dr Asad Khan, The University of Queensland, for his assistance with the statistical processes of some parts of this research and the staff and patients of the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre for their contribution to data collection.

  • The study was approved by The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee and The University of Queensland Behavioural and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee.

  • The results of this study were presented at the Australian Pain Society 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting; March 17–20, 2013; Canberra, Australia.

  • The equipment used in the study was funded by the Professor Tess Cramond Multidisciplinary Pain Centre. Ms Andrews was supported by a Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation scholarship, an Occupational Therapy Board of Queensland Novice Researcher Grant, and the Cramond Fellowship in Occupational Therapy and Pain Management at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.

  • Received July 15, 2013.
  • Accepted November 8, 2013.
  • © 2014 American Physical Therapy Association

References

  1. ↵
    1. Atkinson JH,
    2. Ancoli-Israel S,
    3. Slater MA,
    4. et al
    . Subjective sleep disturbance in chronic back pain. Clin J Pain. 1988;4:225–232.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Morin CM,
    2. Gibson D,
    3. Wade J
    . Self-reported sleep and mood disturbance in chronic pain patients. Clin J Pain. 1998;14:311–314.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Pilowsky I,
    2. Crettenden I,
    3. Townley M
    . Sleep disturbance in pain clinic patients. Pain. 1985;23:27–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Sayar K,
    2. Arikan M,
    3. Yontem T
    . Sleep quality in chronic pain patients. Can J Psychiat. 2002;47:844–848.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Smith MT,
    2. Perlis ML,
    3. Smith MS,
    4. et al
    . Sleep quality and presleep arousal in chronic pain. J Behav Med. 2000;23:1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Banks S,
    2. Dinges D
    . Behavioral and physiological consequences of sleep restriction. J Clin Sleep Med. 2007;3:519–528.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Groeger JA,
    2. Zijlstra FR,
    3. Dijk DJ
    . Sleep quantity, sleep difficulties and their perceived consequences in a representative sample of some 2000 British adults. J Sleep Res. 2004;13:359–371.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Roth T,
    2. Ancoli-Israel S
    . Daytime consequences and correlates of insomnia in the United States: results of the 1991 National Sleep Foundation survey, II. Sleep. 1999;22 (suppl 2):S354–S358.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Turk DC,
    2. Dworkin RH,
    3. Revicki D,
    4. et al
    . Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain. 2008;137:276–285.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Deer TR,
    2. Leong MS,
    3. Buvanendran A,
    4. et al.
    1. Smith HS
    . Sleep aids. In: Deer TR, Leong MS, Buvanendran A, et al., eds. Comprehensive Treatment of Chronic Pain by Medical, Interventional, and Integrative Approaches: The American Academy of Pain Medicine Textbook on Patient Management. New York, NY: Springer; 2013:89–97.
  11. ↵
    1. Smith HS
    1. Smith HS,
    2. Webster L,
    3. Gallati C,
    4. et al
    . Pain and sleep. In: Smith HS, ed. Current Therapy in Pain. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2009:363–373.
  12. ↵
    1. Nicholas M,
    2. Molloy A,
    3. Tonkin L,
    4. et al
    . Improving sleep. In: Manage Your Pain. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: ABC Books; 2006:158–166.
  13. ↵
    1. Carney C,
    2. Manber R
    . Quiet Your Mind and Get to Sleep. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications Inc; 2009.
  14. ↵
    1. Stepanski EJ,
    2. Wyatt JK
    . Use of sleep hygiene in the treatment of insomnia. Sleep Med Rev. 2003;7:215–225.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Currie SR,
    2. Wilson KG,
    3. Pontefract AJ,
    4. et al
    . Cognitive-behavioral treatment of insomnia secondary to chronic pain. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:407–416.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Vitiello MV,
    2. Rybarczyk B,
    3. Von Korff M,
    4. et al
    . Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia improves sleep and decreases pain in older adults with co-morbid insomnia and osteoarthritis. J Clin Sleep Med. 2009;5:355–362.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Edinger JD,
    2. Wohlgemuth WK,
    3. Krystal AD,
    4. et al
    . Behavioral insomnia therapy for fibromyalgia patients: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2527–2535.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Driver HS,
    2. Taylor SR
    . Exercise and sleep. Sleep Med Rev. 2000;4:387–402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Kubitz KA,
    2. Landers DM,
    3. Petruzzello SJ,
    4. et al
    . The effects of acute and chronic exercise on sleep: a meta-analytic review. Sports Med. 1996;21:277–291.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Passos GS,
    2. Poyares DL,
    3. Santana MG,
    4. et al
    . Is exercise an alternative treatment for chronic insomnia? Clinics (São Paulo). 2012;67:653–660.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Korszun A,
    2. Young EA,
    3. Engleberg NC,
    4. et al
    . Use of actigraphy for monitoring sleep and activity levels in patients with fibromyalgia and depression. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52:439–443.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Graham JE,
    2. Streitel KL
    . Sleep quality and acute pain severity among young adults with and without chronic pain: the role of biobehavioral factors. J Behav Med. 2010;33:335–345.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Siu YF,
    2. Chan S,
    3. Wong KM,
    4. et al
    . The comorbidity of chronic pain and sleep disturbances in a community adolescent sample: prevalence and association with sociodemographic and psychosocial factors. Pain Med. 2012;13:1292–1303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Buenaver LF,
    2. Quartana PJ,
    3. Grace EG,
    4. et al
    . Evidence for indirect effects of pain catastrophizing on clinical pain among myofascial temporomandibular disorder participants: the mediating role of sleep disturbance. Pain. 2012;153:1159–1166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Csikszentmihalyi M,
    2. Larson R
    . Validity and reliability of the Experience-Sampling Method. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1987;175:526–536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Hektner J,
    2. Schmidt J,
    3. Csikszentmihalyi M
    . Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007.
  27. ↵
    Experience Sampling Program [computer program]. Version 4.0. Boston, MA: Barrett L, Barrett D; 2006.
  28. ↵
    1. Litcher-Kelly L,
    2. Stone AA,
    3. Broderick JE,
    4. et al
    . Associations among pain intensity, sensory characteristics, affective qualities, and activity limitations in patients with chronic pain: a momentary, within-person perspective. J Pain. 2004;5:433–439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Murphy SL,
    2. Smith DM,
    3. Alexander NB
    . Measuring activity pacing in women with lower-extremity osteoarthritis: a pilot study. Am J Occup Ther. 2008;62:329–334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Vendrig AA,
    2. Lousberg R
    . Within-person relationships among pain intensity, mood and physical activity in chronic pain: a naturalistic approach. Pain. 1997;73:71–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Hawker GA,
    2. Mian S,
    3. Kendzerska T,
    4. et al
    . Measures of adult pain. Arthrit Care Res. 2011;63(suppl 11):S240–S252.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Killgore WD
    . The visual analogue mood scale: can a single-item scale accurately classify depressive mood state? Psychol Rep. 1999;85:1238–1243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Sullivan MJ,
    2. Bishop SR,
    3. Pivik J
    . The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:524.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Chibnall JT,
    2. Tait RC
    . Confirmatory factor analysis of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in African American and Caucasian Workers' Compensation claimants with low back injuries. Pain. 2005;113:369–375.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Osman A,
    2. Barrios FX,
    3. Gutierrez PM,
    4. et al
    . The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: further psychometric evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med. 2000;23:351–365.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Papaioannou M,
    2. Skapinakis P,
    3. Damigos D,
    4. et al
    . The role of catastrophizing in the prediction of postoperative pain. Pain Med. 2009;10:1452–1459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    1. Velly AM,
    2. Look JO,
    3. Carlson C,
    4. et al
    . The effect of catastrophizing and depression on chronic pain: a prospective cohort study of temporomandibular muscle and joint pain disorders. Pain. 2011;152:2377–2383.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Jensen MP,
    2. Keefe FJ,
    3. Lefebvre JC,
    4. et al
    . One- and two-item measures of pain beliefs and coping strategies. Pain. 2003;104:453–469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Patterson SM,
    2. Krantz DS,
    3. Montgomery LC,
    4. et al
    . Automated physical activity monitoring: validation and comparison with physiological and self-report measures. Psychophysiology. 1993;30:296–305.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Noor Z,
    2. Smith A,
    3. Smith S,
    4. et al
    . Feasibility and acceptability of wrist actigraph in assessing sleep quality and sleep quantity: a home-based pilot study in healthy volunteers. Health. 2013;5:63–72.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Verbunt JA,
    2. Huijnen IP,
    3. Köke A
    . Assessment of physical activity in daily life in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Eur J Pain. 2009;13:231–242.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Ancoli-Israel S,
    2. Cole R,
    3. Alessi C,
    4. et al
    . The role of actigraphy in the study of sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep. 2003;26:342–392.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    ActiLife 6 Manual. Available at: http://www.actigraphcorp.com/support/downloads/#manuals. 2010. Accessed March 6, 2013.
  44. ↵
    1. Philips H
    . The Psychological Management of Chronic Pain. New York, NY: Springer; 1988.
  45. ↵
    1. Hanson RW,
    2. Gerber KE
    . Coping With Chronic Pain: A Guide to Patient Self-Management. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1990.
  46. ↵
    1. Butler DS,
    2. Moseley GL
    . Explain Pain. Adelaide, Australia: Noigroup Publications; 2003.
  47. ↵
    1. Huijnen IP,
    2. Verbunt JA,
    3. Roelofs J,
    4. et al
    . The disabling role of fluctuations in physical activity in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2009;13:1076–1079.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Huijnen IP,
    2. Kindermans HP,
    3. Seelen HA,
    4. et al
    . Effects of self-discrepancies on activity-related behaviour: explaining disability and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. Pain. 2011;152:2165–2172.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Huijnen IP,
    2. Verbunt JA,
    3. Peters ML,
    4. et al
    . Do depression and pain intensity interfere with physical activity in daily life in patients with chronic low back pain? Pain. 2010;150:161–166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. ↵
    1. Huijnen IP,
    2. Verbunt JA,
    3. Peters ML,
    4. et al
    . Differences in activity-related behaviour among patients with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2011;15:748–755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Sadeh A,
    2. Sharkey KM,
    3. Carskadon MA
    . Activity-based sleep-wake identification: an empirical test of methodological issues. Sleep. 1994;17:201–207.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  52. ↵
    1. Scherbaum CA,
    2. Ferreter JM
    . Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organ Res Meth. 2009;12:347–367.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Brownel WJ,
    2. Draper D
    . Implementation and performance issues in the Bayesian and likelihood fitting of multilevel models. Computation Stat. 2000;15:391–420.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. Mok M
    . Sample size requirements for 2-level designs in educational research. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter. 1995;7:11–15.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Maas CJ,
    2. Hox JJ
    . Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Stat Neerl. 2004;58:127–137.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Maas CJ,
    2. Hox JJ
    . Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology. 2005;1:85–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Garson GD
    , ed. Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013.
  58. ↵
    1. Streiner DL,
    2. Norman GR
    . Correction for multiple testing: is there a resolution? Chest. 2011;140:16–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Enders CK,
    2. Tofighi D
    . Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue. Psychol Methods. 2007;12:121–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Heck R,
    2. Thomas S,
    3. Tabata L
    . Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling With IBM SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
  61. ↵
    1. Regal AR,
    2. Amigo MC,
    3. Cebrián E
    . Sleep and women. Revista De Neurologia. 2009;49:376–382.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Lavigne GJ,
    2. Okura K,
    3. Abe S,
    4. et al
    . Gender specificity of the slow wave sleep lost in chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain. Sleep Med. 2011;12:179–185.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. ↵
    1. Birkholtz M,
    2. Aylwin L,
    3. Harman RM
    . Activity pacing in chronic pain management: one aim, but which method? Part two: national activity pacing survey. Br J Occup Ther. 2004;67:481–487.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Geisser ME,
    2. Robinson ME,
    3. Richardson C
    . A time series analysis of the relationship between ambulatory EMG, pain, and stress in chronic low back pain. Biofeedback Self Regul. 1995;20:339–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. ↵
    1. Liszka-Hackzell JJ,
    2. Martin DP
    . Analysis of nighttime activity and daytime pain in patients with chronic back pain using a self-organizing map neural network. J Clin Monitor Comp. 2005;19:411–414.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. ↵
    1. Lewandowski AS,
    2. Palermo TM,
    3. De la Motte S,
    4. et al
    . Temporal daily associations between pain and sleep in adolescents with chronic pain versus healthy adolescents. Pain. 2010;151:220–225.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Hasenbring MI,
    2. Hallner D,
    3. Klasen B,
    4. et al
    . Pain-related avoidance versus endurance in primary care patients with subacute back pain: psychological characteristics and outcome at a 6-month follow-up. Pain. 2012;153:211–217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. ↵
    1. Hasenbring MI,
    2. Hallner D,
    3. Rusu AC
    . Fear-avoidance- and endurance-related responses to pain: development and validation of the Avoidance-Endurance Questionnaire (AEQ). Eur J Pain. 2009;13:620–628.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. ↵
    1. Glynn CJ,
    2. Lloyd JW,
    3. Folkard S
    . The diurnal variation in perception of pain. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1976;69:369–372.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Uchida S,
    2. Shioda K,
    3. Morita Y,
    4. et al
    . Exercise effects on sleep physiology. Front Neurol. 2012;3:48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. ↵
    Power Analysis in Two-Level Designs [computer program]. Version 2.12. Groningen, the Netherlands: Snijders T, Bosker R, Guldemond H; 2003.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 94 Issue 4 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 94 (4)

Issue highlights

  • Competencies for Prelicensure Education in Pain Management
  • Treatment of Cervicogenic Dizziness
  • Modulating Pain Intensity and Muscle Pain Sensitivity in Chronic Low Back Pain
  • Knee Pain, Knee Osteoarthritis, and Widespread Pain
  • Proposed Guidelines for International Clinical Education in US-Based Physical Therapist Education Programs
  • Patient Global Ratings of Change Over Time
  • Peak Plantar-Flexor Force in Inclusion Body Myositis
  • Assessing Proprioceptive Function
  • Motor Learning in People With Stroke
  • Conservative Treatment of a Biceps Brachii Muscle Tear
  • Physical Activity and Sleep in Adults With Chronic Pain
  • Cognitive Task Performance in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome With and Without Fibromyalgia
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Association Between Physical Activity and Sleep in Adults With Chronic Pain: A Momentary, Within-Person Perspective
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
Association Between Physical Activity and Sleep in Adults With Chronic Pain: A Momentary, Within-Person Perspective
Nicole E. Andrews, Jenny Strong, Pamela J. Meredith, Rachel G. D'Arrigo
Physical Therapy Apr 2014, 94 (4) 499-510; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130302

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save to my folders

Share
Association Between Physical Activity and Sleep in Adults With Chronic Pain: A Momentary, Within-Person Perspective
Nicole E. Andrews, Jenny Strong, Pamela J. Meredith, Rachel G. D'Arrigo
Physical Therapy Apr 2014, 94 (4) 499-510; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130302
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Reliability and Validity of Force Platform Measures of Balance Impairment in Individuals With Parkinson Disease
  • Predictors of Reduced Frequency of Physical Activity 3 Months After Injury: Findings From the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study
  • Effects of Locomotor Exercise Intensity on Gait Performance in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Show more Research Reports

Subjects

  • Pain

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top