• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • VID vitenskapelige høgskole
  • 1 Artikler / Articles
  • Publikasjoner fra CRIStin
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • VID vitenskapelige høgskole
  • 1 Artikler / Articles
  • Publikasjoner fra CRIStin
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Patients’ experiences and effects of non-pharmacological treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome – a scoping mixed methods review

Mengshoel, Anne Marit; Helland, Ingrid B; Meeus, Mira; Castro-Marrero, Jesus; Pheby, Derek; Strand, Elin Bolle
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version
Thumbnail
View/Open
Mengshoel+et+al_+Patients%27+experiences+and+effects+of+non-pharmacological+treatment+for+ME_Chronic+fatigue+syndrome+-+Scoping+review+2020.pdf (1.996Mb)
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2728339
Date
2020
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Artikler / Articles [589]
  • Publikasjoner fra CRIStin [380]
Original version
International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 2020, 15 (1), 1-16   10.1080/17482631.2020.1764830
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.
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Journal
International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being
Copyright
Open Access

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit