Graded Exercise Therapy Guided Self-Help Trial for Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (GETSET): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial and Interview Study

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), is characterized by chronic disabling fatigue and other symptoms, which are not explained by an alternative diagnosis. Previous trials have suggested that graded exercise therapy (GET) is an effective and safe treatment. GET itself is therapist-intensive with limited availability. Objective: While guided self-help based on cognitive behavior therapy appears helpful to patients, Guided graded Exercise Self-help (GES) is yet to be tested. Methods: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial is set within 2 specialist CFS/ME services in the South of England. Adults attending secondary care clinics with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-defined CFS/ME (N=218) will be randomly allocated to specialist medical care (SMC) or SMC plus GES while on a waiting list for therapist-delivered rehabilitation. GES will consist of a structured booklet describing a 6-step graded exercise program, supported by up to 4 face-to-face/telephone/Skype™ consultations with a GES-trained physiotherapist (no more than 90 minutes in total) over 8 weeks. The primary outcomes at 12-weeks after randomization will be physical function (SF-36 physical functioning subscale) and fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes will include healthcare costs, adverse outcomes, and self-rated global impression change scores. We will follow up all participants until 1 year after randomization. We will also undertake qualitative interviews of a sample of participants who received GES, looking at perceptions and experiences of those who improved and worsened. Results: The project was funded in 2011 and enrolment was completed in December 2014, with follow-up completed in March 2016. Data analysis is currently underway and the first results are expected to be submitted soon. Conclusions: This study will indicate whether adding GES to SMC will benefit patients who often spend many months waiting for rehabilitative therapy with little or no improvement being made during that time. The study will indicate whether this type of guided self-management is cost-effective and safe. If this trial shows GES to be acceptable, safe, and comparatively effective, the GES booklet could be made available on the Internet as a practitioner and therapist resource for clinics to recommend, with the caveat that patients also be supported with guidance from a trained physiotherapist. The pragmatic approach in this trial means that GES findings will be generalizable to usual National Health Service (NHS) practice.

Barriers to working with people affected by cancer: Preliminary qualitative data from a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Nutrition may affect occurrence, recurrence and survival rates and many cancer patients and survivors seek individualized nutrition advice. Appropriately skilled nutritional therapy (NT) practitioners may be well-placed to safely provide this advice, but little is known of their perspectives on working with people affected by cancer. This mixed-methods study seeks to explore their views on training, barriers to practice, use of evidence, and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice. Preliminary data on barriers to practice are reported here. Methods: Two cohorts of NT practitioners were recruited from all UK registered NT practitioners, by an on-line anonymous survey. 84 cancer practitioners (CP) and 165 non-cancer practitioners (NCP) were recruited. Mixed quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the survey. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on the use of evidence, barriers to practice and perceived needs for working with clients with cancer, for further exploration using interviews and focus groups. Preliminary results: For the NCP cohort, exploring themes of perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer suggested that perceived complexity, risk and need for caution in this area of practice were important barriers. Insufficient specialist knowledge and skills also emerged as barriers. Some NCPs perceived opposition from medical practitioners and other mainstream healthcare professions as an obstacle to starting cancer practice. To overcome these barriers, specialist training emerged as most important. For the CP cohort, in exploring the skills they considered enabled them to undertake cancer work, specialist clinical and technical knowledge emerged strongly. Only 10% CP participants did not want more work with people affected by cancer. 10% CPs reported some NHS referrals, whereas most received clients by self-referral or from other practitioners. When considering barriers that impede their cancer practice, the dominant categories for CPs were hostility or opposition by mainstream oncology professionals, and lack of dialogue and engagement with them. To overcome these barriers, CPs desired engagement with oncology professionals and recognized specialist cancer NT training. For both NCPs and CPs, evidence resources, practice guidelines and practitioner support networks also emerged as potential enablers to cancer practice. Conclusions: This is the first detailed exploration of NT practitioners’ perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer. Acquiring specialist skills and knowledge appears important to enable NCPs to start cancer work, and for CPs with these skills, the perceived barriers appear foremost in the relationship with mainstream cancer professionals. Further exploration of these themes, and other NT practitioner perspectives on working with people affected by cancer, is underway. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice, training and other resources.