A Janse1, M Worm-Smeitink1, G Bleijenberg2, R Donders3, H Knoop1. 1. Academic Medical Center (AMC),University of Amsterdam,Department of Medical Psychology,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,Amsterdam,the Netherlands. 2. Radboud University Medical Center,Nijmegen,the Netherlands. 3. Department for Health Evidence,Radboud University Medical Centre,Nijmegen,the Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Fabiola Müller; Mathilde G E Verdam; Frans J Oort; Heleen Riper; Annemieke van Straten; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Hans Knoop Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2022-07-22
Authors: Margreet Worm-Smeitink; Anthonie Janse; Arno van Dam; Andrea Evers; Rosalie van der Vaart; Michel Wensing; Hans Knoop Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Margreet Worm-Smeitink; Arno van Dam; Saskia van Es; Rosalie van der Vaart; Andrea Evers; Michel Wensing; Hans Knoop Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Emma Anderson; Roxanne Parslow; William Hollingworth; Nicola Mills; Lucy Beasant; Daisy Gaunt; Chris Metcalfe; David Kessler; John Macleod; Susan Pywell; Kieren Pitts; Simon Price; Paul Stallard; Hans Knoop; Elise Van de Putte; Sanne Nijhof; Gijs Bleijenberg; Esther Crawley Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Severin Hennemann; Katja Böhme; Harald Baumeister; Eileen Bendig; Maria Kleinstäuber; David Daniel Ebert; Michael Witthöft Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marieke Houniet-de Gier; Heleen Beckerman; Kimberley van Vliet; Hans Knoop; Vincent de Groot Journal: Trials Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 2.279