Friday, November 27, 2009

Re: RES: Provision of social support to individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome

If one reads the full text, there is a trend (p=0.06) for an improvement in
physical functioning for the buddy group compared to the control group:

Physical functioning:
Mean (S.D.)

Control Group (N=15):
Baseline: 36.0 (29.9)
At 4 months: 29.7 (24.9)

Buddy Group (N=15):
Baseline: 31.2 (13.1)
At 4 months: 36.1 (14.10)

With larger sample sizes, there is a good chance that this would have led to
a statistically significant result where p is required to be less than 0.05.

However with the existing data, as I said, one can still say there is a
trend for an improvement in physical functioning.

Tom

>Provision of social support to individuals with chronic
>fatigue syndrome.
>
>Journal: J Clin Psychol. 2009 Nov 9. [Epub ahead of print]
>
>Authors: Jason LA, Roesner N, Porter N, Parenti B, Mortensen J, Till L.
>
>Affiliation: DePaul University.
>
>NLM Citation: PMID: 19902489
>
>
>The present study evaluated a buddy program designed to provide
>support for individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
>
>The intervention involved weekly visits by a student
>paraprofessional, who helped out with tasks that needed to be done in
>an effort to reduce some of the taxing demands and responsibilities
>that participants regularly encountered. This model of rehabilitation
>focused on avoiding overexertion in persons with CFS, aiming to avoid
>setbacks and relapses while increasing their tolerance for activity.
>
>Participants with CFS were randomly assigned to either a 4-month
>buddy intervention or a control condition. Posttest results showed
>that individuals who received a student buddy intervention had
>significantly greater reductions in fatigue severity and increases in
>vitality than individuals in the control condition. There were no
>significant changes between groups for physical functioning and stress.
>
>Buddy interventions that help patients with CFS reduce overexertion
>and possibly remain within their energy envelopes can be thought of
>as representing a different paradigm than nonpharmacologic
>interventions that focus only on increasing levels of activity
>through graded exercise.
>
>
>(c) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 66:1-10, 2010.

---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
Co-Cure Archives: http://listserv.nodak.edu/archives/co-cure.html
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------