Here's the question on informal care. As one can see, it was filled in by the participant, not a family member or friend. This was asked before the trial started, at 24 weeks and 52 weeks. When one sees a figure of x number of pounds, it seems very exact. However, I would imagine people don't necessarily answer these questions that accurately - they can involve picking figures out of the air a bit. One could imagine that little biases could easily influence somebody from say saying they got 8 hours vs 10 hours help a week on average (or whatever). I don't know whether referring specifically to "fatigue" as the cause for the need for help could affect results at all? One might think the other option is CFS (or ME) but there is also simply not specifying the illness and see how much help people got. Again, as I think it was pointed out before, it comes back to actometers - it would have been more interesting to see their results. As well as possible inaccurate reporting, we also don't know whether people have lowered their standards/been more reluctant to look for help or, as Sam Carter suggested, some people could have been doing house work as their exercise (I know one case where this did occur with somebody in the GET group).