Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Federica Picariello, Rona Moss-Morris, Sam Norton, Iain C Macdougall, Maria Da Silva-Gane, Ken Farrington, Hope Clayton, Joseph Chilcot
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1234-1246.e5 |
Journal | Journal of Pain and Symptom Management |
Volume | 61 |
Issue number | 6 |
Early online date | 14 Oct 2020 |
DOIs | |
Accepted/In press | 8 Oct 2020 |
E-pub ahead of print | 14 Oct 2020 |
Published | 1 Jun 2021 |
Additional links |
BReF feasibility study findings v1.6 05.10.2020 rev clean
BReF_feasibility_study_findings_v1.6_05.10.2020_rev_clean.docx, 532 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Uploaded date:09 Oct 2020
Version:Accepted author manuscript
Context: Fatigue affects at least half of patients who are on hemodialysis (HD) with considerable repercussions on their functioning, quality of life, and clinical outcomes. Objectives: This study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and potential benefits of a cognitive behavioral therapy intervention for renal fatigue (BReF intervention). Methods: This was a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the BReF intervention vs. waiting-list control. Outcomes included recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. Exploratory estimates of treatment effect were computed. The statistician was blinded to allocation. Results: Twenty-four prevalent HD patients experiencing clinical levels of fatigue were individually randomized (1:1) to BReF (N = 12) or waiting-list control arms (N = 12). Fifty-three (16.6%; 95% CI = 12.7–21.1) of 320 patients approached consented and completed the screening questionnaire. It was necessary to approach 13 patients for screening for every one patient randomized. The rate of retention at follow-up was 75% (95% CI = 53.29–90.23). Moderate to large treatment effects were observed in favor of BReF on fatigue severity, fatigue-related functional impairment, depression, and anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] g = 0.81; SMD g = 0.93; SMD g = 0.38; SMD g = 0.42, respectively) but not sleep quality (SMD g = −0.31). No trial adverse events occurred. Conclusion: There was promising evidence in support of the need and benefits of a cognitive behavioral therapy-based intervention for fatigue in HD. However, uptake was low, possibly as a result of an already high treatment burden in this setting. Considerations on the context of delivery are necessary before pursuing a definitive trial.
King's College London - Homepage
© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454