Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty

Peter D White, Trudie Chalder, Michael Sharpe, Brian J Angus, Hannah L Baber, Jessica Bavinton, Mary Burgess, Lucy V Clark, Diane L Cox, Julia C DeCesare, Kimberley A Goldsmith, Anthony L Johnson, Paul McCrone, Gabrielle Murphy, Maurice Murphy, Hazel O’Dowd, Laura Potts, Rebacca Walwyn, David Wilks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1113-1117
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Health Psychology
Volume22
Issue number9
Early online date24 Jan 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

Cite this