Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Stepped Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Randomized Noninferiority Trial.
chronic fatigue syndrome
cognitive behavioral therapy
eHealth
randomized controlled trial
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 03 2019
14 03 2019
Historique:
received:
12
06
2018
accepted:
19
09
2018
revised:
17
09
2018
entrez:
15
3
2019
pubmed:
15
3
2019
medline:
8
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (I-CBT) leads to a reduction of fatigue severity and disability in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, not all patients profit and it remains unclear how I-CBT is best embedded in the care of CFS patients. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of stepped care, using therapist-assisted I-CBT, followed by face-to-face (f2f) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) when needed, with f2f CBT (treatment as usual [TAU]) on fatigue severity. The secondary aim was to investigate treatment efficiency. A total of 363 CFS patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment arms (n=121). There were 2 stepped care conditions that differed in the therapists' feedback during I-CBT: prescheduled or on-demand. When still severely fatigued or disabled after I-CBT, the patients were offered f2f CBT. Noninferiority of both stepped care conditions to TAU was tested using analysis of covariance. The primary outcome was fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength). Disabilities (Sickness Impact Profile -8), physical functioning (Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36), psychological distress (Symptom Checklist-90), and proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in fatigue were the secondary outcomes. The amount of invested therapist time was compared between stepped care and TAU. Exploratory comparisons were made between the stepped care conditions of invested therapist time and proportion of patients who continued with f2f CBT. Noninferiority was indicated, as the upper boundary of the one-sided 98.75% CI of the difference in the change in fatigue severity between both forms of stepped care and TAU were below the noninferiority margin of 5.2 (4.25 and 3.81, respectively). The between-group differences on the secondary outcomes were also not significant (P=.11 to P=.79). Both stepped care formats required less therapist time than TAU (median 8 hours, 9 minutes and 7 hours, 25 minutes in stepped care vs 12 hours in TAU; P<.001). The difference in therapist time between both stepped care formats was not significant. Approximately half of the patients meeting step-up criteria for f2f CBT after I-CBT did not continue. Stepped care, including I-CBT followed by f2f CBT when indicated, is noninferior to TAU of f2f CBT and requires less therapist time. I-CBT for CFS can be used as a first step in stepped care. Nederlands Trial Register NTR4809; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4809 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74SWkw1V5).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (I-CBT) leads to a reduction of fatigue severity and disability in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). However, not all patients profit and it remains unclear how I-CBT is best embedded in the care of CFS patients.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of stepped care, using therapist-assisted I-CBT, followed by face-to-face (f2f) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) when needed, with f2f CBT (treatment as usual [TAU]) on fatigue severity. The secondary aim was to investigate treatment efficiency.
METHODS
A total of 363 CFS patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment arms (n=121). There were 2 stepped care conditions that differed in the therapists' feedback during I-CBT: prescheduled or on-demand. When still severely fatigued or disabled after I-CBT, the patients were offered f2f CBT. Noninferiority of both stepped care conditions to TAU was tested using analysis of covariance. The primary outcome was fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength). Disabilities (Sickness Impact Profile -8), physical functioning (Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36), psychological distress (Symptom Checklist-90), and proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in fatigue were the secondary outcomes. The amount of invested therapist time was compared between stepped care and TAU. Exploratory comparisons were made between the stepped care conditions of invested therapist time and proportion of patients who continued with f2f CBT.
RESULTS
Noninferiority was indicated, as the upper boundary of the one-sided 98.75% CI of the difference in the change in fatigue severity between both forms of stepped care and TAU were below the noninferiority margin of 5.2 (4.25 and 3.81, respectively). The between-group differences on the secondary outcomes were also not significant (P=.11 to P=.79). Both stepped care formats required less therapist time than TAU (median 8 hours, 9 minutes and 7 hours, 25 minutes in stepped care vs 12 hours in TAU; P<.001). The difference in therapist time between both stepped care formats was not significant. Approximately half of the patients meeting step-up criteria for f2f CBT after I-CBT did not continue.
CONCLUSIONS
Stepped care, including I-CBT followed by f2f CBT when indicated, is noninferior to TAU of f2f CBT and requires less therapist time. I-CBT for CFS can be used as a first step in stepped care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Nederlands Trial Register NTR4809; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4809 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74SWkw1V5).
Identifiants
pubmed: 30869642
pii: v21i3e11276
doi: 10.2196/11276
pmc: PMC6437617
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e11276Informations de copyright
©Margreet Worm-Smeitink, Anthonie Janse, Arno van Dam, Andrea Evers, Rosalie van der Vaart, Michel Wensing, Hans Knoop. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 14.03.2019.
Références
World Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;13(3):288-95
pubmed: 25273302
Clin Psychol Rev. 2012 Jun;32(4):329-42
pubmed: 22466510
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD001027
pubmed: 18646067
Occup Med (Lond). 2005 Jan;55(1):20-31
pubmed: 15699087
J Psychosom Res. 2016 Aug;87:43-9
pubmed: 27411751
Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2012 Mar;5(1):41-51
pubmed: 22280331
J Psychosom Res. 1994 Jul;38(5):383-92
pubmed: 7965927
Cogn Behav Ther. 2018 Jan;47(1):1-18
pubmed: 29215315
BMC Neurol. 2015 Aug 12;15:137
pubmed: 26264735
Psychol Med. 2015 Jan;45(2):231-46
pubmed: 25065653
J Psychosom Res. 2013 Sep;75(3):235-41
pubmed: 23972412
Expert Rev Neurother. 2012 Jul;12(7):861-9; quiz 870
pubmed: 22853793
Psychol Med. 2007 Mar;37(3):319-28
pubmed: 17112400
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22-33;quiz 34-57
pubmed: 9881538
J Psychosom Res. 2015 Oct;79(4):295-302
pubmed: 26272528
PLoS One. 2010 Jun 08;5(6):e10939
pubmed: 20544030
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005 Apr 2;149(14):739-41
pubmed: 15835623
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9
pubmed: 2002127
CMAJ. 2016 Mar 1;188(4):263-272
pubmed: 26527829
Clin Psychol Rev. 2008 Jun;28(5):736-45
pubmed: 18060672
BMJ. 2005 Jan 1;330(7481):14
pubmed: 15585538
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;212(2):112-118
pubmed: 29436329
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1990 Oct 6;134(40):1950-4
pubmed: 2234151
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2017 Sep;45(5):448-466
pubmed: 28473005
Lancet. 2018 Feb 17;391(10121):679-686
pubmed: 29224931
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Oct;78(5):724-31
pubmed: 20873907
J Behav Med. 2008 Apr;31(2):169-77
pubmed: 18165893
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Dec 15;121(12):953-9
pubmed: 7978722
BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 Dec 31;3(1):25
pubmed: 14702202
Psychother Psychosom. 2007;76(3):171-6
pubmed: 17426416
Behav Res Ther. 1997 Aug;35(8):785-91
pubmed: 9256522
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2010 Dec;47(4):637-45
pubmed: 21198249
J Psychosom Res. 1998 Dec;45(6):507-17
pubmed: 9859853
Behav Ther. 2016 Mar;47(2):166-83
pubmed: 26956650
Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(6):368-76
pubmed: 26402868
Br J Psychiatry. 2008 Oct;193(4):340-1
pubmed: 18827302
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Lancet. 2006 Jan 28;367(9507):346-55
pubmed: 16443043
Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(4):196-205
pubmed: 20183695
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 05;6:29281
pubmed: 27377429
Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:105-10
pubmed: 23576883
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 15;19(9):e306
pubmed: 28916506
J Psychosom Res. 2017 Jul;98:40-46
pubmed: 28554371