A qualitative study of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction in people with advanced multiple sclerosis

• Published in: Physiotherapy theory and practice Vol. 41; no. 3; pp. 633 - 642
• Main Authors: Swink, Laura A., Thornton, Wesley A., Nearing, Kathryn A., Manago, Mark M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis Ltd 01.03.2025
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Blood flow; Blood Flow Restriction Therapy - methods; Disability Evaluation; Everyday life; Female; Humans; Intervention; Interviews; Male; Middle Aged; Mobility; Multiple sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis - diagnosis; Multiple Sclerosis - physiopathology; Multiple Sclerosis - psychology; Multiple Sclerosis - therapy; Muscle Strength; Patient Satisfaction; Qualitative Research; Resistance; Resistance Training - methods; Self-efficacy; Strength training; Translation; Treatment Outcome; Blood flow restriction; qualitative; multiple sclerosis; impact; satisfaction; acceptability; participant input
• ISSN: 0959-3985; 1532-5040; 1532-5040
• DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2024.2341993

Blood flow restriction (BFR) combined with low-load resistance training could minimize exercise barriers and offer strength and mobility improvements for people with advanced Multiple Sclerosis (MS); but patient experience has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to assess the satisfaction, acceptability, and impact of combining low-load resistance training with BFR for individuals with advanced MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale: EDSS 6.0-7.0). We used an interpretive phenomenological research design and post-intervention interviews to explore participant experiences of a novel low-load resistance training program with BFR. Interview participants (  = 14) were 55.4 ± 6.2 years old and were diagnosed with MS for 19.1 ± 10.7 years. Four themes were identified (satisfaction, acceptability, impact, program refinement) with 14 subthemes. Satisfaction was mixed based on overall expectations, yet all participants recommended the intervention. Acceptability was evidenced by all participants identifying comfortable/easy aspects, and modifiable elements that could improve comfort. Impact was evidenced with translation to everyday life activities, strength/self-efficacy/psychological improvements, effectiveness, and fatigue reduction. Participants found BFR combined with low-load resistance training to be satisfactory (mixed initial expectations), acceptable (comfortable/easy), and impactful (translating to life improvements). Areas for program refinement were identified that should be targeted in future iterations.