ArticleBMJ open2026
Model-based economic evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in patients with long-term medical conditions in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in adults with long-term conditions: a synopsis of the EIFFEL mixed-methods evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersistent fatigue is a frequent symptom in chronic medical conditions. Systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue have identified interventions that are effective at reducing fatigue, but there is limited published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
objectiveTo identify non-pharmacological fatigue interventions that have the potential to be cost-effective in patients with long-term medical conditions.
designDecision analytic modelling with intervention costs estimated from staff time and quality-of-life outcomes mapped from a systematic review and network meta-analysis of fatigue outcomes.
settingUK National Health Service (NHS).
participantsPeople with persistent fatigue associated with a chronic medical condition.
interventionsNon-pharmacological fatigue interventions versus usual care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Net monetary benefit from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained; intervention costs valued at 2022/23 prices; costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% per annum.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, expected costs from the probabilistic analysis for individual and group interventions were: £267 and £157 for physical activity promotion, £810 and £485 for cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-Fatigue and £462 and £214 for mindfulness. The expected QALYs gained were similar for mindfulness and physical activity promotion (0.061 and 0.060, respectively), but lower for CBT-Fatigue (0.045). All interventions provided positive incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) versus usual care when valuing a QALY at £20 000. However, since group interventions are less costly than individual ones, and we assumed equivalent clinical benefit, they are expected to provide greater INMB. These findings remained robust across different scenarios, except for CBT-Fatigue (individual), which had negative INMB in some scenarios.
conclusionsThere remains uncertainty regarding which intervention is most cost-effective due to limitations in the underlying evidence base. Future research is recommended to compare the cost-effectiveness of these interventions across a broad population with different chronic conditions.
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.