Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty

White, Peter D., Chalder, Trudie, Sharpe, Michael, Angus, Brian J., Baber, Hannah L., Bavinton, Jessica, Burgess, Mary, Clark, Lucy V., Cox, Diane ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2691-6423 , DeCesare, Julia C., Goldsmith, Kimberley A., Johnson, Anthony L., McCrone, Paul, Murphy, Gabrielle, Murphy, Maurice, O’Dowd, Hazel, Potts, Laura, Walwyn, Rebecca and Wilks, David (2017) Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty. Journal of Health Psychology, 22 (9). pp. 1113-1117.

Preview

PDF - Accepted Version Available under License CC BY-NC Download (97kB) | Preview

Abstract

This article is written in response to the linked editorial by Dr Geraghty about the adaptive Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy; a randomised Evaluation (PACE) trial, which we led, implemented and published. The PACE trial compared four treatments for people diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. All participants in the trial received specialist medical care. The trial found that adding cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy to specialist medical care was as safe as, and more effective than, adding adaptive pacing therapy or specialist medical care alone. Dr Geraghty has challenged these findings. In this article, we suggest that Dr Geraghty’s views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial; these are corrected.

Item Type:	Article
Journal / Publication Title:	Journal of Health Psychology
Publisher:	SAGE Publications
ISSN:	1461-7277
Departments:	Professional Services > Research Office & Graduate School (ROGS)
Depositing User:	Anna Lupton
Date Deposited:	30 Jan 2017 10:58
Last Modified:	12 Jan 2024 18:02
URI:	https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/2644

Downloads