Cited by 276Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesCancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis Fatigue

van Kessel, Kirsten, Moss-Morris, Rona, Willoughby, Ernest, Chalder, Trudie, Johnson, Malcolm H., Robinson, Elizabeth·2008·Psychosomatic Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) as a treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) fatigue. METHODS: A randomized controlled design was used where 72 patients with MS fatigue were randomly assigned to eight weekly sessions of CBT or relaxation training (RT). RT was designed to control for therapist time and attention. Participants were assessed before and after treatment, and at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. The primary outcome was the Fatigue Scale. Secondary outcomes included measures of stress, mood, and fatigue-related impairment. RESULTS: Analysis was by intention-to-treat. A group by time interaction showed that the CBT group reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue across the 8 months compared with the RT group (p < .02). Calculated effect sizes for fatigue from baseline to the end of treatment were 3.03 [95% confidence interval, 2.22-3.68] for the CBT group and 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.34] for the RT group. Results also indicted that both groups showed clinically significant decreases in fatigue defined as fatigue levels equivalent or less than those reported by a non-fatigued healthy comparison group. There were no significant interactions between group and any of the secondary outcome variables, with both groups showing improvements over time on all measures. INTERPRETATION: Both CBT and RT appear to be clinically effective treatments for fatigue in MS patients, although the effects for CBT are greater than those for RT. Even 6 months after treatment, both treatment groups reported levels of fatigue equivalent to those of the healthy comparison group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/psy.0b013e3181643065

Cites

36 of 36 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
van Kessel, K., Moss-Morris, R., Willoughby, E., Chalder, T., Johnson, M. H., & Robinson, E.
Corresponding author
Moss-Morris, Rona
Venue
Psychosomatic Medicine
Published
2008-02
Volume
70
Issue
2
Pages
205-213
ISSN
0033-3174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095809030
Cited by
276
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychosomatic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, fatigue, cognitive behavioral therapy, relaxation training, treatment efficacy, stress, mood, psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Manuals as Topic, Multiple Sclerosis, Relaxation Therapy, 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