![]() |
[Cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome from the patient’s perspective] [Article in Dutch]- Source: Medisch Contact, Feb 2008by MP KoolhassMarch 3, 2008 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 etiology 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 behavior 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: A subgroup analysis showed that: Conclusions: Overall, 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. Source: Medisch Contact, February 2008, ISBN: 978-90-812658-1-2, by Koolhaas MP, de Boorder H, van Hoof E. The Netherlands. Copyright © 2009 ProHealth, Inc. Printed From: http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=13537 |