Anne Marit Mengshoel1, Ingrid Bergliot Helland2, Mira Meeus3,4,5, Jesus Castro-Marrero6, Derek Pheby7, Elin Bolle Strand8. 1. Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo , Oslo, Norway. 2. Norwegian National Advisory Unit on CFS/ME, Division of Pediatrics and Adolescents, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital , Oslo, Norway. 3. Research Group MOVANT, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Antwerp , Wilrijk, Belgium. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium. 5. Pain in Motion, International Research Group. 6. CFS/ME Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma De Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain. 7. Society and Health, Buckinghamshire New University , High Wycombe, UK. 8. Faculty of Health Studies, VID Specialized University , Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The EU COST Action 15111 collaboration on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) aims to assess current research and identify knowledge gaps in Europe. Presently, our purpose is to map the effects of non-pharmacological therapies (NPTs) for ME/CFS, and what patients find important in the treatment process. METHODS: A scoping mixed methods literature review of European studies identified 16 papers fulfiling our inclusion criteria. The quantitative and qualitative studies were synthesized separately in tables. Additionally, extracts from the qualitative studies were subjected to translational analysis. RESULTS: Effect studies addressed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT, n = 4), multimodal rehabilitation (n = 2) and activity-pacing (n = 2). CBT reduced fatigue scores more than usual care or waiting list controls. The effects of rehabilitation and activity-pacing were inconsistent. The contents, assessment methods and effects of rehabilitation and activity pacing studies varied. For patients, health professionals' recognition of ME/CFS and support were crucial, but they expressed ambiguous experiences of what the NPTs entail. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological differences make comparisons across NPTs impossible, and from a patient perspective the relevance of the specific contents of NPTs are unclear. Future well-designed studies should focus on developing NPTs tailored to patients' concerns and evaluation tools reflecting what is essential for patients.
PURPOSE: The EU COST Action 15111 collaboration on myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) aims to assess current research and identify knowledge gaps in Europe. Presently, our purpose is to map the effects of non-pharmacological therapies (NPTs) for ME/CFS, and what patients find important in the treatment process. METHODS: A scoping mixed methods literature review of European studies identified 16 papers fulfiling our inclusion criteria. The quantitative and qualitative studies were synthesized separately in tables. Additionally, extracts from the qualitative studies were subjected to translational analysis. RESULTS: Effect studies addressed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT, n = 4), multimodal rehabilitation (n = 2) and activity-pacing (n = 2). CBT reduced fatigue scores more than usual care or waiting list controls. The effects of rehabilitation and activity-pacing were inconsistent. The contents, assessment methods and effects of rehabilitation and activity pacing studies varied. For patients, health professionals' recognition of ME/CFS and support were crucial, but they expressed ambiguous experiences of what the NPTs entail. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological differences make comparisons across NPTs impossible, and from a patient perspective the relevance of the specific contents of NPTs are unclear. Future well-designed studies should focus on developing NPTs tailored to patients' concerns and evaluation tools reflecting what is essential for patients.
Authors: D C W M Vos-Vromans; R J E M Smeets; I P J Huijnen; A J A Köke; W M G C Hitters; L J M Rijnders; M Pont; B Winkens; J A Knottnerus Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: M C Sharpe; L C Archard; J E Banatvala; L K Borysiewicz; A W Clare; A David; R H Edwards; K E Hawton; H P Lambert; R J Lane Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 18.000