@article {Chisholm15, author = {D Chisholm and E Godfrey and L Ridsdale and T Chalder and M King and P Seed and P Wallace and S Wessely and Fatigue Trialists{\textquoteright} Group}, title = {Chronic fatigue in general practice: economic evaluation of counselling versus cognitive behaviour therapy.}, volume = {51}, number = {462}, pages = {15--18}, year = {2001}, publisher = {Royal College of General Practitioners}, abstract = {BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment responses to chronic fatigue. AIM: To compare the relative costs and outcomes of counselling versus cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) provided in primary care settings for the treatment of fatigue. DESIGN OF STUDY: A randomised controlled trial incorporating a cost-consequences analysis. SETTING: One hundred and twenty-nine patients from 10 general practices across London and the South Thames region who had experienced symptoms of fatigue for at least three months. METHOD: An economic analysis was performed to measure costs of therapy, other use of health services, informal care-giving, and lost employment. The principal outcome measure was the Fatigue Questionnaire; secondary measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a social adjustment scale. RESULTS: Although the mean cost of treatment was higher for the CBT group (164 Pounds, standard deviation = 67) than the counselling group (109 Pounds, SD = 49; 95\% confidence interval = 35 to 76, P \< 0.001), a comparison of change scores between baseline and six-month assessment revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of aggregate health care costs, patient and family costs or incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per unit of improvement on the fatigue score). CONCLUSIONS: Counselling and CBT both led to improvements in fatigue and related symptoms, while slightly reducing informal care and lost productivity costs. Counselling represents a less costly (and more widely available) intervention but no overall cost-effectiveness advantage was found for either form of therapy.}, issn = {0960-1643}, URL = {https://bjgp.org/content/51/462/15}, eprint = {https://bjgp.org/content/51/462/15.full.pdf}, journal = {British Journal of General Practice} }