Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Pauline Powell a Regional Infectious Diseases Unit, University
Hospital Aintree, Liverpool L9 7AL, b Department of Psychology,
Coupland 1 Building, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, c Department of Medicine, University of Liverpool,
Liverpool L69 3GA
Correspondence to: R P Bentall
bentall{at}psy.man.ac.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To assess the efficacy of an educational
intervention explaining symptoms to encourage graded exercise in
patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
Patients' beliefs are based on evidence they find
convincing.1 As most of the symptoms of chronic fatigue
syndrome are physical, patients develop a strong physical perception of
the condition. In the absence of medical explanation, many attribute intense and unpleasant symptoms to an underlying disease and are disinclined to accept that psychological factors may have a role. Attributing symptoms to ongoing physical disease is an important predictor of poor prognosis.2
The aetiology of chronic fatigue syndrome is controversial, and
extensive research has failed to identify any serious underlying pathology. However, many patients show signs of disrupted physiological regulation. Chronic fatigue syndrome may be associated with
desynchronisation of circadian rhythms, which may be a consequence of
disruption of the daily cues needed to reset the biological clock Two randomised clinical trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and
graded exercise that are compatible with this model have produced
positive results.
10 11
However, cognitive behaviour therapy is expensive and carries the risk of deterring patients who are
fearful of contact with mental health workers. We have developed a
treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome that is briefer. It involves
educating patients about the medical evidence of the physical and
psychological effects of physical deconditioning and circadian
dysrhythmia, with the intention of encouraging a self managed graded
exercise programme. A more detailed account of the intervention
approach, adapted to the needs of non-ambulatory patients, has been
published.12
Patients were initially recruited from consecutive referrals to a
dedicated chronic fatigue clinic at the Royal Liverpool University
Hospital. Because the clinic closed recruitment continued from an
infectious diseases outpatient clinic at University Hospital, Aintree.
All patients aged 15-55 were assessed by a consultant physician (RHTE
or FJN) to confirm the diagnosis.
Inclusion criteria specified that patients fulfilled the Oxford
criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome13 and scored <25 on the physical functioning subscale of the SF-36
questionnaire.14 This subscale has a range of 10 to 30, where 10 indicates maximum physical limitation in self care and 30 indicates ability to do vigorous sports. Patients were excluded if they
were having further physical investigations or taking other treatments,
including antidepressants (unless the same dose had been taken for at
least three months without improvement); had a psychotic illness,
somatisation disorder, eating disorder, or history of substance misuse;
or were confined to a wheelchair or bed.
We calculated that we needed a sample size of 26 patients per group
using pilot data and assuming a 20% difference between groups and a
power of 80% at the 5% significance level. We set a recruitment
target of 34 patients per group to allow for drop outs. The study was
approved by the district research ethics committee, and all
participants gave written informed consent.
Randomisation
Treatment conditions
Design:
Randomised controlled trial.
Setting:
Chronic fatigue clinic and infectious
diseases outpatient clinic.
Subjects:
148 consecutively referred patients
fulfilling Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome.
Interventions:
Patients randomised to the control
group received standardised medical care. Patients randomised to
intervention received two individual treatment sessions and two
telephone follow up calls, supported by a comprehensive educational
pack, describing the role of disrupted physiological regulation in
fatigue symptoms and encouraging home based graded exercise. The
minimum intervention group had no further treatment, but the telephone
intervention group received an additional seven follow up calls and the
maximum intervention group an additional seven face to face sessions
over four months.
Main outcome measure:
A score of
25 or an increase
of
10 on the SF-36 physical functioning subscale (range 10 to 30) 12 months after randomisation.
Results:
21 patients dropped out, mainly from the
intervention groups. Intention to treat analysis showed 79 (69%) of
patients in the intervention groups achieved a satisfactory outcome in physical functioning compared with two (6%) of controls, who received standardised medical care (P<0.0001). Similar improvements were observed in fatigue, sleep, disability, and mood. No significant differences were found between the three intervention groups.
Conclusions:
Treatment incorporating evidence based
physiological explanations for symptoms was effective in encouraging
self managed graded exercise. This resulted in substantial improvement
compared with standardised medical care.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References
for
example, by a viral infection or stressful life events.3
Evidence of sleep abnormalities4 and cortisol
deficiency
5 6
are consistent with this hypothesis. The
subsequent reduction in activity results in cardiovascular and muscular
deconditioning, which exacerbates symptoms.
7 8
Inaccurate
illness beliefs that encourage avoidance of activity and chaotic sleep
patterns may perpetuate the condition.9 This model
suggests that providing patients with evidence based illness beliefs
may facilitate activity and bring about therapeutic change.
![]()
Participants and methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References
Immediately after medical assessment, eligible patients were
randomised into four groups by means of a sequence of computer
generated random numbers in sealed numbered envelopes. We used a simple
randomisation with stratification for scores on the hospital anxiety
and depression scale,15 using a cut off of 11 to indicate
clinical depression.
Patients in the control group received standardised medical care.
This comprised a medical assessment, advice, and an information booklet
that encouraged graded activity and positive thinking but gave no
explanations for the symptoms. Patients were advised that they would be
sent a questionnaire to assess their progress at three, six, and 12 months and discharged back to primary care.
Patients received two face
to face sessions totalling three hours in which symptoms were explained and the graded exercise programme was designed.
Telephone intervention group
In addition to the minimum
intervention patients received seven planned telephone contacts, each of about 30 minutes over three months. During these calls explanations for symptoms and the treatment rationale were reiterated and problems associated with graded exercise were discussed with the use of motivational interviewing techniques.16
Maximum intervention group
In addition to the minimum
intervention, patients received seven one hour face to face treatment sessions over three months. These had the same function as the telephone sessions in the telephone intervention group.
All patients in the intervention groups were told that they would be
telephoned after the three and six month assessments to review
progress. In addition, they could request additional telephone advice
by leaving a message on an answering machine. Table 1
shows the mean number and duration of telephone calls made to patients in the intervention groups. Calls requested by patients were mainly for support and reassurance.
|
Outcome measures
Patients were sent questionnaires containing validated measures of
outcome by post before randomisation and at three, six, and 12 months.
Primary outcomes were scores on the physical functioning subscale of
the SF-36 questionnaire and on the fatigue scale (range 0-11, scores
>3 indicate excessive fatigue).17 The predetermined
criterion for clinically important improvement at one year was a score
of
25 or more or an increase of
10 from baseline on the physical
functioning scale (range 10 to 30). This is similar to normal daily
functioning for the UK general population.18 At baseline
the mean score for physical functioning was 16.0.
Statistical analysis
We used an intention to treat analysis. For patients who dropped
out of treatment, the last values obtained were carried forward.
Complete data were obtained for all patients who completed treatment
except for three: two did not complete the questionnaire at three
months and one did not complete the questionnaire at one year.
2 statistic. Secondary outcome measures are
reported to describe the nature and pattern of change.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The figure shows the flow of patients through the trial. Of the 312 patients assessed, 152 did not meet the trial criteria (69 medical exclusions, 23 psychiatric exclusions, 36 scored over 24 on the SF-36 physical functioning subscale, 16 were unable to attend, and 8 were receiving other therapies). Twelve of the 160 eligible patients refused to participate. Twenty one (14%) of the 148 patients who entered the trial dropped out, a rate comparable to that in similar trials.11 Of these, 19 were in the intervention groups and dropped out during treatment (eight for medical reasons, seven for psychiatric reasons, four gave no reason, one emigrated, and one was dissatisfied with treatment). Table 2 shows patients' characteristics on admission to the trial. No significant differences were detected between the four groups on these measures.
|
|
Treatment effects
Table 3 gives the scores for the primary outcome
measures at baseline and follow up. At one year, significantly more
patients had improved on the SF-36 physical functioning scale than in
the control group. (F(3, 142)=24.15, P<0.001). The mean score in all
three intervention groups was higher than in the control group
(P<0.001), and no difference was observed between the intervention
groups. Similarly, on the fatigue scale, improvement at one year follow
up (F(3, 142)=24.99, P<0.001) was greater in each of the intervention
groups than in the control group (P<0.001 for each comparison) but no
differences were observed between the intervention
groups.
|
2=42.54, df=3, P<0.001).
These proportions equated to numbers needed to treat of 1.55, 1.58, and
1.60 respectively.
Table 4 shows the changes in the secondary measures. Of
those patients who completed educational intervention, 84% (80/95) reported being "very much better" or "much better" compared
with 12% (4/32) of control patients.
|
Changes in beliefs
Seventy seven patients in the intervention groups completed
questionnaires about their illness beliefs; two questionnaires were
incomplete. Most patients (81%, 61/75) reported that they had believed
their condition was caused by a persistent virus before treatment and
23% (17/75) reported maintaining this belief at one year. The
proportion believing that their condition was due to a missed physical
illness was 67% (50/75) at baseline and 13% (10/75) at one year. Only
15% (11/75) reported that they had believed that their condition was
related to physical deconditioning at baseline whereas 81% (61/75)
believed this after treatment. Eighty two per cent (63/77) indicated
that they had avoided physical activity before treatment compared with
only 6% (5/77) after treatment. The explanations of their symptoms
convinced 94% (72/77) of the patients to carry out graded activity.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The interventions were more effective in improving fatigue and physical functioning than standardised medical care. Mood, sleep, and disability scores also improved. These gains were maintained at one year follow up. Improvement in the control group was similar to that observed elsewhere.21
Of the patients who completed treatment, 81% met our improvement criterion. Although the intervention was generally beneficial, an intention to treat analysis showed that 32% of patients still complained of fatigue at one year despite a substantial improvement in physical functioning.
We found no significant differences between the three intervention groups. For many of the patients, the minimum intervention of two face to face sessions and up to four follow up telephone contacts was sufficient to bring about clinical gains. There was no evidence that further face to face or telephone contacts facilitated further improvement, although differences may emerge when longer term follow up data are collected.
Other trials in chronic fatigue syndrome reported encouraging results with cognitive behaviour therapy 10 11 and graded exercise. 21 22 In those trials, 60-74% of patients who completed treatment rated themselves as better or much better compared with 84% of patients who completed the interventions in the present trial. A recent review found that, "Cognitive behavioural therapy administered by highly skilled therapists in specialist centres is an effective intervention for people with chronic fatigue syndrome, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 2."23 Our findings compare favourably with this outcome. Our intervention requires fewer sessions than cognitive behaviour therapy and could be carried out by a clinician without advanced training in psychological therapies.
Limitations
Our current study has several limitations, including the lack of a
placebo control group that received equivalent therapist time and
attention. However, other investigators have found that therapist time
alone does not result in positive outcomes.
11 21 22
After treatment, most patients attributed their improvement to changes
of behaviour brought about by the physiological explanations they were
given for their symptoms.
|
What is already known on this topic
No serious underlying pathology has been identified in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome show evidence of disrupted physiological regulation, including physical deconditioning, sleep disturbance, and circadian dysrhythmia Cognitive behaviour therapy targeted at changing illness beliefs and graded exercise helps some patients What this study addsPatients given physiological explanations for their symptoms and encouraged to do graded exercise were significantly better than those who received standardised care at one year The approach may be as effective as cognitive behaviour therapy but is shorter and requires less therapist skill |
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Contributors: PP conceived the study. PP and RPB jointly designed the study in collaboration with RHTE and FJN. PP carried out the therapy. FJN and RHTE clinically assessed patients. RPB analysed the data and interpreted the results. PP and RPB wrote the paper, guided by the comments of the other authors. RPB and PP are the guarantors.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: Linbury Trust.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Wessely S, Edwards RHT. Chronic fatigue. In: Greenwood R, Barnes M, McMillan T, Ward C, eds. Neurological rehabilitation. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1993:311-325. |
| 2. |
Wilson A, Hickie I, Lloyd A, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Boughton C, Dwyer J, et al.
Longitudinal study of outcome of chronic fatigue syndrome.
BMJ
1994;
308:
756-759 |
| 3. | Williams G, Piromohamed J, Minors D, Waterhouse J, Arendt J, Edwards RHT. Dissociation of body-temperature and melatonin secretion circadian rhythms in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Clin Physiol 1996; 16: 327-333[Medline]. |
| 4. | Morriss R, Wearden A, Battersby L. The relation of sleep difficulties to fatigue, mood and disability in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res 1997; 42: 597-605[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 5. |
Demitrack M, Dale J, Straus S, Laue L, Listwak S, Kruesi M, et al.
Evidence for impaired activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.
J Clin Endcrinol Metab
1991;
73:
1224-1234 |
| 6. | Cleare A, Bearn J, Allain T, McGregor A, Wessely S, Murray R, et al. Contrasting neuroendocrine responses in depression and chronic fatigue syndrome. J Affect Disord 1995; 35: 293-289. |
| 7. | Edwards R, Clague J, Gibson H, Helliwell T. Muscle metabolism, histopathology, and physiology in chronic fatigue syndrome. In: Straus S, ed. Chronic fatigue syndrome. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1994:241-261. |
| 8. |
De Lorenzo F, Xiao H, Mukherjee M, Harcup J, Suleiman S, Kadziola Z, et al.
Chronic fatigue syndrome: physical and cardiovascular deconditioning.
Q J Med
1998;
91:
475-481 |
| 9. | Wessely S, Hotopf M, Sharpe M. Chronic fatigue and its syndromes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. |
| 10. |
Sharpe M, Hawton K, Simkin S, Surway C, Hackmann A, Klimes I, et al.
Cognitive behaviour therapy for the chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.
BMJ
1996;
312:
22-26 |
| 11. | Deale A, Chalder T, Marks I, Wessely S. Cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 408-414[Abstract]. |
| 12. | Powell P, Edwards R, Bentall R. The treatment of wheelchair-bound chronic fatigue syndrome patients: Two case studies of a pragmatic treatment approach. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 1999; 27: 249-260. |
| 13. |
Sharpe M, Archard L, Banarvala J, Borysiewicz L, Clare A, David A, et al.
A report chronic fatigue syndrome: guidelines for research.
J R Soc Med
1991;
84:
118-121[Medline].
|
| 14. | Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF36). Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483[Medline]. |
| 15. | Zigmond A, Snaith R. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361-370[Medline]. |
| 16. | Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing. New York: Guilford Press, 1991. |
| 17. | Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, et al. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res 1993; 37: 147-153[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 18. | Garratt A, Ruta D, Abdalla M, Buckingham J, Russell I. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for use within the NHS? BMJ 1993; 306: 1440-1444. |
| 19. | Jenkins D, Stanton B, Niemcryk S, Rose R. A scale for the estimation of sleep problems in clinical research. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 313-321[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 20. | Guy W. Clinical global impressions. In: ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Medical Health, 1976:218-222. |
| 21. |
Wearden A, Morriss R, Mullis R, Strickland P, Pearson D, Appleby L, et al.
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment trial of fluoxetine and graded exercise for chronic fatigue syndrome.
Br J Psychiatry
1998;
172:
485-496 |
| 22. |
Fulcher K, White P.
Randomised controlled trial of graded exercise in patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome.
BMJ
1997;
314:
1647-1652 |
| 23. |
Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
BMJ
2000;
320:
292-296 |
(Accepted 17 November 2000)
Read all Rapid Responses