1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Dr. Kerr, I presume?
Clark Ellis brings us a rare interview with British researcher Dr. Jonathan Kerr who is now living in Colombia.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CBT for chronic fatigue syndrome: predictors of treatment outcome (Prins et al)

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Jan 7, 2012.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes:
    5,577
    Free full text can be found in her PhD:

    http://dare.ubn.kun.nl/handle/2066/19294
    or
    http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/19294

    Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: predictors of treatment outcome.

    Prins, J.B.; Bazelmans, E.; van der Werf, S.; van der Meer, J.W.M.; Bleijenberg, G.

    International Congress Series vol. 1241 September, 2002. p. 131-135

    Although cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is effective in several RCTs, little is known about predictors of treatment outcome.

    With the data of our RCT, where CBT for CFS was significantly more effective in improving fatigue severity and functional impairment than guided support groups and natural course, the predictive value of activity pattern, disability claims and psychiatric comorbidity was tested for outcome of CBT.

    Patients with a passive activity pattern and patients who were engaged in a legal procedure concerning financial benefits had a worse outcome.

    Psychiatric comorbidity was not a predictor.

    For patients with a passive activity pattern, another type of CBT has to be offered. CBT should not be offered to patients during their engagement in legal procedures of disability claims.

    Keywords: Cognitive behaviour therapy; Predictors; Randomised controlled trial
    ISSN: 0531-5131.
    Snow Leopard likes this.
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,726
    Likes:
    5,577
    These points are not very exciting - I just wanted to post them somewhere.
    I have just realised that the main thing I thought that I had spotted is not true so this is even less interesting that I first planned to write!

    Background:
    This study looks at the data from the Prins et al CBT study that was published in the Lancet in 2001.
    This was hyped as a great success. However Ellen Goudsmit & Bart Stouten found that data was presented in 2002 that showed there was no difference between the groups in terms of change in activity. However the Nijmegen chose not to publish this until the Wiborg et al paper in 2010!

    (again I do not think this is likely to be a good threshold for a "healthy individual"). (Fatigue was measured by the fatigue subscale of the Checklist individual strength (CIS)).

    Point of minor interest #1:
    Anyway, it was interesting to see that none of those in the passive activity pattern improved following CBT! That's pretty dramatic give the lose definition. At follow-up 6 months later (14 months), 20% had reached the threshold. Looking at the original data, 13% in the support group and 17% in the natural course group (of the total group) were at that threshold at 14 months.

    Point of minor interest #2:
    The paper actually gives some data on all 270 people i.e. also those in the support group and in the natural course group. However when saying that the people who were loyal to the legal procedure to try to claim financial benefits did worse, which happened for both the overall groups and the CBT groups, they only give us the percentage "clinically improved" for the CBT group even though they give the Chi^2 and p-values for both straight after i.e. normally you would give the percentages for both but perhaps they were hiding them for some reason.

    Point of minor interest #3:
    They again say that recovery is the aim of CBT:
    Snow Leopard likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page