Non-pharmacological treatment options for fatigue: A systematic review of RCTs in adults

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Psychosomatic Research Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112084
Carlotta Steen , Anna Zalpur , Marissa Bentele , Stephan Zipfel , Andreas Stengel
{"title":"Non-pharmacological treatment options for fatigue: A systematic review of RCTs in adults","authors":"Carlotta Steen ,&nbsp;Anna Zalpur ,&nbsp;Marissa Bentele ,&nbsp;Stephan Zipfel ,&nbsp;Andreas Stengel","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Fatigue is a significant contributor to the burden experienced by patients with chronic disorders. The development of standardized treatments is challenging due to the lack of consensus concerning the etiology of fatigue. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue. The efficacy and differences in fatigue treatment across conditions will be explored.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo and CINAHL.</div><div>Trials were eligible when (1) adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with disorders causing fatigue were included, (2) non-pharmacological interventions performed, (3) treatment was compared to standard care, placebo or active control group, (4) fatigue was the only primary outcome assessed with a multidimensional tool, and (5) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design was applied.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>7592 papers were screened. 91 RCTs were eligible, with data reported in 95 papers. Specific fatigue interventions were present for a broad range of conditions. Findings demonstrated promising evidence for physical activity, CBT, online programs and multidimensional modules. Additional types of interventions were effective, but evidence was limited due to risk of bias and small sample sizes. Due to high heterogeneity concerning methodology, a meta-analysis was not possible.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Several non-pharmacological treatment options for fatigue are promising. No clear evidence was found that fatigue should be treated differently depending on the underlying condition. However, further research is necessary with a focus on a transdiagnostic approach to fatigue, high study quality and long-term follow-ups.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 112084"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399925000480","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Fatigue is a significant contributor to the burden experienced by patients with chronic disorders. The development of standardized treatments is challenging due to the lack of consensus concerning the etiology of fatigue. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue. The efficacy and differences in fatigue treatment across conditions will be explored.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo and CINAHL.
Trials were eligible when (1) adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with disorders causing fatigue were included, (2) non-pharmacological interventions performed, (3) treatment was compared to standard care, placebo or active control group, (4) fatigue was the only primary outcome assessed with a multidimensional tool, and (5) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design was applied.

Results

7592 papers were screened. 91 RCTs were eligible, with data reported in 95 papers. Specific fatigue interventions were present for a broad range of conditions. Findings demonstrated promising evidence for physical activity, CBT, online programs and multidimensional modules. Additional types of interventions were effective, but evidence was limited due to risk of bias and small sample sizes. Due to high heterogeneity concerning methodology, a meta-analysis was not possible.

Conclusion

Several non-pharmacological treatment options for fatigue are promising. No clear evidence was found that fatigue should be treated differently depending on the underlying condition. However, further research is necessary with a focus on a transdiagnostic approach to fatigue, high study quality and long-term follow-ups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
314
审稿时长
6.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychosomatic Research is a multidisciplinary research journal covering all aspects of the relationships between psychology and medicine. The scope is broad and ranges from basic human biological and psychological research to evaluations of treatment and services. Papers will normally be concerned with illness or patients rather than studies of healthy populations. Studies concerning special populations, such as the elderly and children and adolescents, are welcome. In addition to peer-reviewed original papers, the journal publishes editorials, reviews, and other papers related to the journal''s aims.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Exploring the relationship between religiosity and telomere length in older individuals Non-pharmacological treatment options for fatigue: A systematic review of RCTs in adults Attention in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review of affected domains and brain-gut axis interactions Welfare benefit utilization for people with functional somatic disorder. A population-based cohort study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1