The relation between cognitive-behavioural responses to symptoms in patients with long term medical conditions and the outcome of cognitive behavioural therapy for fatigue - A secondary analysis of four RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is effective in reducing fatigue across long-term conditions (LTCs). This study evaluated whether cognitive and behavioural responses to symptoms: 1) differ between LTCs and 2) moderate and/or mediate the effect of CBT on fatigue. METHOD: Data were used from four Randomized Controlled Trials testing the efficacy of CBT for fatigue in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME (N = 240), Multiple Sclerosis (N = 90), Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (N = 120) and Q-fever fatigue syndrome (N = 155). Fatigue severity, assessed with the Checklist Individual Strength, was the primary outcome. Differences in fatigue perpetuating factors, assessed with the Cognitive Behavioural Responses to Symptoms Questionnaire (CBRQ), between diagnostic groups were tested using ANCOVAs. Linear regression and mediation analyses were used to investigate moderation and mediation by CBRQ scores of the treatment effect. RESULTS: There were small to moderate differences in CBRQ scores between LTCs. Patients with higher scores on the subscales damage beliefs and avoidance/resting behaviour at baseline showed less improvement following CBT, irrespective of diagnosis. Reduction in fear avoidance, catastrophising and avoidance/resting behaviour mediated the positive effect of CBT on fatigue across diagnostic groups. DISCUSSION: The same cognitive-behavioural responses to fatigue moderate and mediate treatment outcome across conditions, supporting a transdiagnostic approach to fatigue.

Efficacy of web-based cognitive-behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) leads to a reduction of fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Aims To test the efficacy of internet-based CBT (iCBT) for adults with CFS. METHOD: A total of 240 patients with CFS were randomised to either iCBT with protocol-driven therapist feedback or with therapist feedback on demand, or a waiting list. Primary outcome was fatigue severity assessed with the Checklist Individual Strength (Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4013). RESULTS: Compared with a waiting list, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed a significant reduction of fatigue for both iCBT conditions (protocol-driven feedback: B = -8.3, 97.5% CI -12.7 to -3.9, P < 0.0001; feedback on demand: B = -7.2, 97.5% CI -11.3 to -3.1, P < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between both iCBT conditions on all outcome measures (P = 0.3-0.9). An exploratory analysis revealed that feedback-on-demand iCBT required less therapist time (mean 4 h 37 min) than iCBT with protocol-driven feedback (mean 6 h 9 min, P < 0.001) and also less than face-to-face CBT as reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Both iCBT conditions are efficacious and time efficient. Declaration of interest None.

The assessment of fatigue: Psychometric qualities and norms for the Checklist individual strength.

OBJECTIVE: The Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) measures four dimensions of fatigue: Fatigue severity, concentration problems, reduced motivation and activity. On the fatigue severity subscale, a cut-off score of 35 is used. This study 1) investigated the psychometric qualities of the CIS; 2) validated the cut-off score for severe fatigue and 3) provided norms. METHODS: Representatives of the Dutch general population (n=2288) completed the CIS. The factor structure was investigated using an exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were determined. Concurrent validity was assessed in two additional samples by correlating the CIS with other fatigue scales (Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire, MOS Short form-36 Vitality subscale, EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue subscale). To validate the fatigue severity cut-off score, a Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis was performed with patients referred to a chronic fatigue treatment centre (n=5243) and a healthy group (n=1906). Norm scores for CIS subscales were calculated for the general population, patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS; n=1407) and eight groups with other medical conditions (n=1411). RESULTS: The original four-factor structure of the CIS was replicated. Internal consistency (α=0.84-0.95) and test-retest reliability (r=0.74-0.86) of the subscales were high. Correlations with other fatigue scales were moderate to high. The 35 points cut-off score for severe fatigue is appropriate, but, given the 17% false positive rate, should be adjusted to 40 for research in CFS. CONCLUSION: The CIS is a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of fatigue, with a validated cut-off score for severe fatigue that can be used in clinical practice.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: Differences in treatment outcome between a tertiary treatment centre in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) reduces fatigue and disability in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, outcomes vary between studies, possibly because of differences in patient characteristics, treatment protocols, diagnostic criteria and outcome measures. The objective was to compare outcomes after CBT in tertiary treatment centres in the Netherlands (NL) and the United Kingdom (UK), using different treatment protocols but identical outcome measures, while controlling for differences in patient characteristics and diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Consecutively referred CFS patients who received CBT were included (NL: n=293, UK: n=163). Uncontrolled effect sizes for improvement in fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire), physical functioning (SF-36 physical functioning subscale) and social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) were compared. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine whether patient differences explained outcome differences between centres. RESULTS: Effect sizes differed between centres for fatigue (Cohen's D NL=1.74, 95% CI=1.52-1.95; UK=0.99, CI=0.73-1.25), physical functioning (NL=0.99, CI=0.81-1.18; UK=0.33, CI=0.08-0.58) and social functioning (NL=1.47, CI=1.26-1.69; UK=0.61, CI=0.35-0.86). Patients in the UK had worse physical functioning at baseline and there were minor demographic differences. These could not explain differences in centre outcome. CONCLUSION: Effectiveness of CBT differed between treatment centres. Differences in treatment protocols may explain this and should be investigated to help further improve outcomes.