Cited by 57Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchLong-Term Effects of COVID-19Traumatic Brain Injury Research

Effectiveness of stepped care for chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized noninferiority trial.

Tummers, Marcia, Knoop, Hans, Bleijenberg, Gijs·2010·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this randomized noninferiority study, the effectiveness and efficiency of stepped care for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was compared to care as usual. Stepped care was formed by guided self-instruction, followed by cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) if the patient desired it. Care as usual encompassed CBT after a waiting period. METHOD: A total of 171 CFS patients were randomly allocated to stepped care or care as usual. Patients in both conditions were assessed 3 times: at baseline, after guided self-instruction or the waiting period, and after CBT. The primary outcome variables were fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength) and disabilities (Sickness Impact Profile and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36). RESULTS: An intention to treat analysis showed that stepped care (N = 84) for CFS is noninferior to care as usual (N = 85). Both conditions were equivalent in reducing fatigue severity, reducing disabilities, and increasing physical functioning. The treatment results of both conditions were in accordance with those of previous randomized controlled trials testing the effectiveness of CBT for CFS. The total therapist time needed to treat a patient was significantly less in the stepped care condition. CONCLUSIONS: Stepped care is as effective as CBT and is more time efficient for the therapist.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020052

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tummers, M., Knoop, H., & Bleijenberg, G.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2010-10
Volume
78
Issue
5
Pages
724-731
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2167262553
Cited by
57
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
chronic fatigue syndrome, stepped care, cognitive behavioral therapy, non-inferiority, fatigue severity, disability, physical function, usual care
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Prognosis, Self Care, Sick Role, Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review