SummaryBackgroundTrial findings show cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can be effective treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome, but patients' organisations have reported that these treatments can be harmful and favour pacing and specialist health care. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of all four treatments.MethodsIn our parallel-group randomised trial, patients meeting Oxford criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome were recruited from six secondary-care clinics in the UK and randomly allocated by computer-generated sequence to receive specialist medical care (SMC) alone or with adaptive pacing therapy (APT), CBT, or GET. Primary outcomes were fatigue (measured by Chalder fatigue questionnaire score) and physical function (measured by short form-36 subscale score) up to 52 weeks after randomisation, and safety was assessed primarily by recording all serious adverse events, including serious adverse reactions to trial treatments. Primary outcomes were rated by participants, who were necessarily unmasked to treatment assignment; the statistician was masked to treatment assignment for the analysis of primary outcomes. We used longitudinal regression models to compare SMC alone with other treatments, APT with CBT, and APT with GET. The final analysis included all participants for whom we had data for primary outcomes. This trial is registered at http://isrctn.org, number ISRCTN54285094.FindingsWe recruited 641 eligible patients, of whom 160 were assigned to the APT group, 161 to the CBT group, 160 to the GET group, and 160 to the SMC-alone group. Compared with SMC alone, mean fatigue scores at 52 weeks were 3·4 (95% CI 1·8 to 5·0) points lower for CBT (p=0·0001) and 3·2 (1·7 to 4·8) points lower for GET (p=0·0003), but did not differ for APT (0·7 [−0·9 to 2·3] points lower; p=0·38). Compared with SMC alone, mean physical function scores were 7·1 (2·0 to 12·1) points higher for CBT (p=0·0068) and 9·4 (4·4 to 14·4) points higher for GET (p=0·0005), but did not differ for APT (3·4 [−1·6 to 8·4] points lower; p=0·18). Compared with APT, CBT and GET were associated with less fatigue (CBT p=0·0027; GET p=0·0059) and better physical function (CBT p=0·0002; GET p<0·0001). Subgroup analysis of 427 participants meeting international criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and 329 participants meeting London criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis yielded equivalent results. Serious adverse reactions were recorded in two (1%) of 159 participants in the APT group, three (2%) of 161 in the CBT group, two (1%) of 160 in the GET group, and two (1%) of 160 in the SMC-alone group.InterpretationCBT and GET can safely be added to SMC to moderately improve outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome, but APT is not an effective addition.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Department of Health for England, Scottish Chief Scientist Office, Department for Work and Pensions.

No abstract

We conducted a systematic review of literature relating to videoconferencing in therapeutic interventions for chronic conditions. Two hundred articles were reviewed in detail, 35 of which were relevant to the study. Of these, eight were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the remainder were service evaluations, pilot studies and case studies. Two major themes emerged, relating specifically to videoconferencing: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. There were 14 studies which measured clinical outcomes of interventions for chronic conditions delivered by videoconferencing. A range of evidence, including four RCTs of high quality, indicates that interventions for a variety of conditions, including psychological and physical, delivered by videoconferencing produce similar outcomes to treatment delivered in-person. Evidence suggests that levels of patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation are high and that the formation of a good therapeutic alliance is possible. Several papers reported that clinical staff showed lower levels of satisfaction in using telerehabilitation than patients. It is feasible to use videoconferencing as a means of delivering therapeutic interventions for people with chronic conditions in rural communities.

No abstract

Abstract:Background. To establish whether the current training of student sonographers in both academic and clinical settings is sufficient for educating about the dangers of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs).Methods. A dual method of data collection was undertaken. Initially, a focus group was set up, involving a small group of practicing sonographers from a hospital in the United Kingdom, with the results of that survey being used to design a postal survey questionnaire. The questionnaire focused on ergonomics, scanning technique, training in physical techniques, personal general health, risk, stress, and task management. It was sent to seven participating universities across the United Kingdom. Approvals were obtained from the local ethics committees, the hospital Trust, and the academic institution.Results. The focus group highlighted several areas in which improvements could be made in educating sonographers on the reduction of WRMSDs. The questionnaire results indicated that students are being taught about certain aspects of WRMSD prevention by both their university and clinical mentors. Respondents received training on the prevention of WRMSDs: 97% in the university setting and 81% from clinical mentors.Conclusions. Improvements need to be made in terms of educating students to perform muscle strengthening exercises during the workday; to have a system of reporting injury; to consider personal health, well-being, and stress management in the workplace; and to evaluate the ergonomics of computer workstations.Keywords: work-related musculoskeletal disorders; ultrasound; sonographer; education; musculoskeletal; occupational diseases More than 80% of sonographers in the United Kingdom have reported experiencing pain from repeatedly performing sonographic (US) examinations.1 Sonographers are scanning an increasing number of patients per session and are often working without taking protected breaks and rest periods.Sonography is an expanding modality, with applications in obstetrics and gynecology, general abdominal and small parts, vascular, and musculoskeletal imaging.3 Sonographers are increasingly developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs), and more than 80% of sonographers in the United Kingdom are reporting pain from US scanning.4,5 WRMSDs are caused by small repetitive stresses to muscles and tendons that occur over time and include conditions such as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, bursitis, and epicondylitis.6