No abstract

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)) is defined as fatigue that is disabling, is accompanied by additional symptoms and persists for ≥ 4 months. Treatment of CFS/ME aims to help patients manage their symptoms and make lifestyle adjustments. We do not know whether intervening early in primary care (< 4 months after onset of fatigue) can prevent the development of CFS/ME. Methods: This was a feasibility randomised controlled trial with adults (age ≥ 18 years) comparing usual care with usual care plus an early intervention (EI; a combination of psycho-education and cognitive behavioural therapy, CBT). This study took place in fourteen primary care practices in Bristol, England and aimed to identify issues around recruitment and retention for a full-scale trial. It was not powered to support statistical analysis of differences in outcomes. Integrated qualitative methodology was used to explore the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and randomisation to the intervention. Results: Forty-four patients were recruited (1 August 2012-November 28, 2013), falling short of our predicted recruitment rate of 100 patients in 8 months. Qualitative data from GPs showed recruitment was not feasible because it was difficult to identify potential participants within 4 months of symptom onset. Some referring GPs felt screening investigations recommended by NICE were unnecessary, and they had difficulty finding patients who met the eligibility criteria. Qualitative data from some participant interviews suggested that the intervention was not acceptable in its current format. Although the majority of participants found parts of the intervention acceptable, many reported one or more problems with acceptability. Participants who discontinued the intervention or found it problematic did not relate to the therapeutic model, disliked telephone consultations or found self-reflection challenging. Conclusions: A randomised controlled trial to test an early intervention for fatigue in adults in primary care is not feasible using this intervention and recruitment strategy.

This commentary on six articles comprising this Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session issue on the therapeutic process in group psychotherapy brings together relevant clinical challenges and opportunities concerning the unique processes of change in group treatments. As illustrated by these six inspiring group therapy cases, therapy groups may vary widely in content and context. To balance the rich clinical illustrations of successful group treatments and the different theoretical formulations offered in these case studies, we highlight the processes that these treatments appear to have in common. Specifically, we describe the clinical considerations about the group format and the group members. We also reflect on the relational dynamics as they play out within the complex interplay between group leaders and group members; the facilitation of the corrective emotional experience as a change mechanism in group therapy, as well as the relational challenges and opportunities inherent in group treatments more generally. It is hoped that in this issue, clinicians will not only be inspired by the clinical description of successful change processes in group treatments but will also be reminded of the therapeutic nuances and opportunities of this multilayered treatment format.

No abstract

No abstract