ArticleFatigue : biomedicine, health & behavior2017
Cost-Utility of Home-Based Fatigue Self-Management versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Article in Fatigue : biomedicine, health & behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Trends and Hotspots in the Health Economics Evaluation of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic fatigue syndrome is a complex chronic condition with large negative impact on patients' function and quality of life. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral intervention remain inconclusive.
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-utility of a home-based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among primary care patients with severe chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
methodsAn economic evaluation alongside of a randomized controlled study design was used. Cost and utility data were collected from 137 patients with severe CFS at baseline and 1-year follow-up. The FSM group (n=89) received self-delivered cognitive behavioral self-management intervention and the usual care group (n=48) received regular medical care. Cost was measured by total costs (direct, indirect, and intervention costs) during the follow-up period. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), as the utility measure, were derived from the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36. A societal perspective was adopted. Bootstrapped incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) and net monetary benefit were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.
resultsBaseline individual characteristics were similar between the two groups. The intervention was well-received by the participants with only minimum attrition. At the end of one year post-intervention, FSM dominated usual care in terms of ICUR in both the intention-to-treat analysis and the complete-cases-only analysis. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has higher probability of achieving positive net monetary across the entire range of possible societal willingness-to-pay for fatigue symptom management.
conclusionsIn primary care patients with severe CFS, the low-cost FSM appears to be a cost-effective treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.