Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Sep 1, 2017.
FATIGUE: BIOMEDICINE, HEALTH & BEHAVIOR, 2017
So delivering CBT over the internet is the cheaper way to deliver a treatment that has no long term benefit so it has a higher efficiency per quid? Even tho CBT has no long term effect?
Seems blindly obvious really - how much did this cost to determine?
edit....and surely it's the only way to deliver CBT to people with severe ME? As people with severe ME tend not to go out much/ at all. So how did they manage to do the comparison?
In terms of the raw costs, the treatment as usual group resulted in a bigger saving:
So $569 vs $864.
TAU $295 less.
Take away: $79 and costs still went down $216 more in the treatment as usual group than the fatigue symptom management group.
This figure includes costs of informal care and missed work.
However with the adjusted figures, the fatigue self-management group did better:
The changes in percentages affected are I think due to a three-month period being used before treatment versus 12-month follow-up, though the costs relate to monthly costs.
As an aside I thought it was interesting how many worked. My guess is in many other countries such as in Europe the percentages at the same level might be lower, that there is more pressure to work in the US.
From what I have read, I find Friedberg's approach less objectionable than normal Dutch and UK CBT. The latter is focused on graded activity and related issues while Friedberg's is more flexible and includes pacing.
These are the only results we are given i.e. we are not given results in the form of SF-36 results:
i.e. there is a statistically significant difference
Dutch and UK CBT CFS studies don't tend to mention this tapering off.
Yes of course, managing at home is more economical, but we are still sick. Just like self-service at a gas station is more economical than full serve. Self-management is simply a modern way to get rid of patients.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.