Tag: actometer

Clinical assessment of the physical activity pattern of chronic fatigue syndrome patients: a validation of three methods

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) relies on a correct classification of so called ‘fluctuating active’ versus ‘passive’ patients. For successful treatment with CBT is it especially important to recognise the passive patients and give them a tailored treatment protocol. In the present study it was evaluated whether CFS patient’s physical activity pattern can be assessed most accurately with the ‘Activity Pattern Interview’ (API), the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) or the CFS-Activity Questionnaire (CFS-AQ).

METHODS: The three instruments were validated compared to actometers. Actometers are until now the best and most objective instrument to measure physical activity, but they are too expensive and time consuming for most clinical practice settings. In total 226 CFS patients enrolled for CBT therapy answered the API at intake and filled in the two questionnaires. Directly after intake they wore the actometer for two weeks. Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves the validity of the three methods were assessed and compared.

RESULTS: Both the API and the two questionnaires had an acceptable validity (0.64 to 0.71). None of the three instruments was significantly better than the others. The proportion of false predictions was rather high for all three instrument. The IPAQ had the highest proportion of correct passive predictions (sensitivity 70.1%).

CONCLUSION: The validity of all three instruments appeared to be fair, and all showed rather high proportions of false classifications. Hence in fact none of the tested instruments could really be called satisfactory. Because the IPAQ showed to be the best in correctly predicting ‘passive’ CFS patients, which is most essentially related to treatment results, it was concluded that the IPAQ is the preferable alternative for an actometer when treating CFS patients in clinical practice.

 

Source: Scheeres K, Knoop H, Meer vd, Bleijenberg G. Clinical assessment of the physical activity pattern of chronic fatigue syndrome patients: a validation of three methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Apr 1;7:29. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674446/ (Full article)

 

Physical activity in chronic fatigue syndrome: assessment and its role in fatigue

Abstract:

This paper describes the assessment of physical activity in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and investigated the following questions: Do patients with CFS have low levels of physical activity; is there a relationship between actual level of physical activity and fatigue; can self-report measures adequately assess actual level of physical activity; what is the role of cognitions with respect to physical activity; and are results with respect to physical activity specific to CFS?

Three different types of activity measures were used: self-report questionnaires, a 12-day self-observation list, and a motion-sensing device (Actometer) which was used as a reference for actual activity level. Fifty-one patients with CFS, 50 fatigued patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), and 53 healthy subjects participated in this study.

Although none of the self-report questionnaires showed high correlations with the Actometer, questionnaires that require simple ratings of specified activities were related to the Actometer and can be used as acceptable substitutes, in contrast to instruments that require general subjective interpretations of activity that had low or non-significant correlations with the Actometer.

Actometer results showed that CFS patients and MS patients had similar activity levels and both groups were significantly less active than healthy subjects. Compared to MS patients, CFS patients were more likely to indicate that they had been less active than other persons they knew. Activities which patients expected to result in higher fatigue levels were less frequently performed. Patients with CFS had significantly higher scores on this measure than MS patients and healthy subjects. Low levels of physical activity were related to severe fatigue in CFS but not in MS.

In conclusion, although CFS patients have similar low activity levels than MS patients, there are also important differences between both groups: in CFS cognitive factors are more prominently involved in producing the low activity levels than in MS and in CFS patients activity level is related to fatigue but not in MS.

 

Source: Vercoulen JH, Bazelmans E, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, Jongen PJ, Hommes O, Van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Physical activity in chronic fatigue syndrome: assessment and its role in fatigue. J Psychiatr Res. 1997 Nov-Dec;31(6):661-73. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9447571

 

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine in chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: No somatic treatment has been found to be effective for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Antidepressant therapy is commonly used. Fluoxetine is recommended in preference to tricyclic agents because it has fewer sedative and autonomic nervous system effects. However, there have been no randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies showing the effectiveness of antidepressant therapy in CFS. We have carried out such a study to assess the effect of fluoxetine in depressed and non-depressed CFS patients.

METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind study, we recruited 44 patients to the depressed CFS group, and 52 to the non-depressed CFS group. In each group participants were randomly assigned to receive either fluoxetine (20 mg once daily) or placebo for 8 weeks. The effect of fluoxetine was assessed by questionnaires, self-observation lists, standard neuropsychological tests, and a motion-sensing device (Actometer), which were applied on the day treatment started and on the last day.

FINDINGS: The two groups were well matched in terms of age, sex distribution, employment and marital status, and duration of CFS. There were no significant differences between the placebo and fluoxetine-treated groups in the change during the 8-week treatment period for any dimension of CFS. There was no change in subjective assessments of fatigue, severity of depression, functional impairment, sleep disturbances, neuropsychological function, cognitions, or physical activity in the depressed or the non-depressed subgroup.

INTERPRETATION: Fluoxetine in a 20 mg daily dose does not have a beneficial effect on any characteristic of CFS. The lack of effect of fluoxetine on depressive symptoms in CFS suggests that processes underlying the presentation of depressive symptoms in CFS may differ from those in patients with major depressive disorder.

 

Source: Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Zitman FG, Vreden SG, Hoofs MP, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine in chronic fatigue syndrome. Lancet. 1996 Mar 30;347(9005):858-61. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8622391