Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
Thanks, that is what I'm after.
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Table 5: Number of patients with paid work and total worked hours per week before and after CBT
# of hours 0.5-8 8.5-16 16.5-24 24.5-32 32.5-40 Average N
paid work hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs(st. dev)
Before CBT 4 6 12 6 13 24.9 (11.9) 41
After CBT 6 4 15 2 4 20.0 (9.9) 31
Table 6: Number of (university) student patients and study hours per week before and after CBT
# of hours 0.5-8 8.5-16 16.5-24 24.5-32 32.5-40 Average N
study/week hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs(st. dev)
Before CBT 4 5 2 2 2 17.3 (12.2) 15
After CBT 4 5 2 1 0 12.7 (7.1) 12
Table 7: Number of patients active in sports and hours doing sports per week before and after CBT
(this probably includes working out in a gym, etc)
# of hours 0.5-1 1.5-2 2.5-3 3.5-4 4.5-5 More than Average N
sport/week hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs (N) 5 hrs (N) hrs(st. dev)
Before CBT 11 4 1 3 5 0 2.4 (1.64) 24
After CBT 10 18 2 0 4 2 2.3 (1.65) 36
Table 8: Number of hours of active social contact per week before and after CBT
# of hours 0 0.5-1 1.5-2 2.5-3 3.5-4 4.5-5 More than Average N
active social hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) 5 hrs (N) hrs(st. dev)
contact
Before CBT 36 24 17 8 6 0 6 1.64 (2.0) 100
After CBT 35 25 20 7 3 2 6 1.58 (1.9) 100
Table 9: Number of hours of passive social contact per week before and after CBT
# of hours 0 0.5-1 1.5-2 2.5-3 3.5-4 4.5-5 More than Average N
passive social hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) 5 hrs (N) hrs(st. dev)
contacts
Before CBT 16 27 25 12 10 5 5 2.16 (1.9) 100
After CBT 19 31 25 12 3 5 5 1.93 (1.9) 100
Of all treatment approaches, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and graded exercise are best supported by randomized, double-blind trials, as well as meta-analyses of these trials.
Code:Table 5: Number of patients with paid work and total worked hours per week before and after CBT # of hours 0.5-8 8.5-16 16.5-24 24.5-32 32.5-40 Average N paid work hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs(st. dev) Before CBT 4 6 12 6 13 24.9 (11.9) 41 After CBT 6 4 15 2 4 20.0 (9.9) 31 Table 6: Number of (university) student patients and study hours per week before and after CBT # of hours 0.5-8 8.5-16 16.5-24 24.5-32 32.5-40 Average N study/week hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs (N) hrs(st. dev) Before CBT 4 5 2 2 2 17.3 (12.2) 15 After CBT 4 5 2 1 0 12.7 (7.1) 12 Table 7: Number of patients active in sports and hours doing sports per week before and after CBT (this probably includes working out in a gym, etc) # of hours 0.5-1 1.5-2 2.5-3 3.5-4 4.5-5 More than Average N sport/week hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs (N) 5 hrs (N) hrs(st. dev) Before CBT 11 4 1 3 5 0 2.4 (1.64) 24 After CBT 10 18 2 0 4 2 2.3 (1.65) 36 Table 8: Number of hours of active social contact per week before and after CBT # of hours 0 0.5-1 1.5-2 2.5-3 3.5-4 4.5-5 More than Average N active social hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) 5 hrs (N) hrs(st. dev) contact Before CBT 36 24 17 8 6 0 6 1.64 (2.0) 100 After CBT 35 25 20 7 3 2 6 1.58 (1.9) 100 Table 9: Number of hours of passive social contact per week before and after CBT # of hours 0 0.5-1 1.5-2 2.5-3 3.5-4 4.5-5 More than Average N passive social hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) hrs(N) 5 hrs (N) hrs(st. dev) contacts Before CBT 16 27 25 12 10 5 5 2.16 (1.9) 100 After CBT 19 31 25 12 3 5 5 1.93 (1.9) 100
I think it's extremely interesting that structured exercise increased after CBT, and all other forms of activity dropped .
That Table 5 with the CBT results.. can someone please tell me what paper/study that comes from?
Background
In recent years, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS), has been getting a lot of attention in scientific literature. However its aetiology remains unclear and it has yet to be clarified why some people are more prone to this condition than others. Furthermore, there is as yet no consensus about the treatment of ME/CFS. The different treatments can be subdivided into two groups, the pharmacological and the psychosocial therapies. Most of the scientific articles on treatment emphasize the psychosocial approach.
The most intensively studied psychological therapeutic intervention for ME/CFS is cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). In recent years several publications on this subject have been published. These studies report that this intervention can lead to significant improvements in 30% to 70% of patients, though rarely include details of adverse effects. This pilot study was undertaken to find out whether patients’ experiences with this therapy confirm the stated percentages. Furthermore, we examined whether this therapy does influence the employment rates, and could possibly increase the number of patients receiving educational training, engaged in sports, maintaining social contacts and doing household tasks.
Method
By means of a questionnaire posted at various newsgroups on the internet, the reported subjective experiences of 100 respondents who underwent this therapy were collected. These experiences were subsequently analysed.
Results
Only 2% of respondents reported that they considered themselves to be completely cured upon finishing the therapy. Thirty per cent reported ‘an improvement’ as a result of the therapy and the same percentage reported no change. Thirty-eight percent said the therapy had affected them adversely, the majority of them even reporting substantial deterioration. Participating in CBT proved to have little impact on the number of hours people were capable of maintaining social contacts or doing household tasks. A striking outcome is that the number of those respondents who were in paid employment or who were studying while taking part in CBT was adversely affected. The negative outcome in paid employment was statistically significant. CBT did, however, lead to an increase in the number of patients taking up sports.
A subgroup analysis showed that those patients who were involved in legal proceedings in order to obtain disability benefit while participating in CBT did not score worse than those who were not. Cases where a stated objective of the therapy was a complete cure, did not have a better outcome. Moreover, the length of the therapy did not affect the results.
Conclusions
This pilot study, based on subjective experiences of ME/CFS sufferers, does not confirm the high success rates regularly claimed by research into the effectiveness of CBT for ME/CFS. Over all, CBT for ME/CFS does not improve patients’ well-being: more patients report deterioration of their condition rather than improvement.
Our conclusion is that the claims in scientific publications about the effectiveness of this therapy based on trials in strictly controlled settings within universities, has been overstated and are therefore misleading. The findings of a subgroup analysis also contradict reported findings from research in strictly regulated settings.
The Great White Hope, spinning occupational outcomes re CBT-GET?
White did a presentation titled "What helps occupational rehabilitation when the doctor cannot explain the symptoms?" Dolphin posted the URL a few weeks ago (http://www.sou.gov.se/socialaradet/pdf/Peter Whites presentation.pdf).