Descriptive statistics and treatment effects for the primary outcome measures
| Outcome measure | Baseline (n=159) | Follow-up 1 (n=146) | Follow-up 2 (n=144) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Fatigue Severity subscale of the Fatigue Assessment Instrument (potential range 1–7, high scores indicate more fatigue) | |||
| FACETS mean (SD) | 5.60 (0.98) | 5.48 (0.92) | 5.26 (1.03) |
| CLP mean (SD) | 5.61 (1.09) | 5.55 (1.17) | 5.66 (0.93) |
| Mean diff in change from baseline (95% CI)* | – | −0.03 (−0.33 to 0.28) | −0.36 (−0.63 to −0.08) |
| p Value | – | 0.86 | 0.01 |
| Std effect size | – | −0.03 | −0.35 |
| Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (potential range 0–100, high scores indicate more impact) | |||
| FACETS mean (SD) | 49.6 (19.1) | 47.3 (18.2) | 44.9 (19.2) |
| CLP mean (SD) | 43.9 (17.6) | 42.2 (18.4) | 43.0 (17.3) |
| Mean diff in change from baseline (95% CI)* | – | 1.44 (−2.36 to 5.24) | −1.56 (−6.45 to 3.34) |
| p Value | – | 0.46 | 0.53 |
| Std effect size | – | 0.08 | –0.08 |
| Fatigue Self-Efficacy Scale (potential range 10–100, high scores indicate more certainty in controlling fatigue) | |||
| FACETS mean (SD) | 45 (17) | 57 (17) | 56 (19) |
| CLP mean (SD) | 49 (16) | 50 (17) | 53 (17) |
| Mean diff in change from baseline (95% CI)* | – | 9 (4 to 14) | 6 (0 to 12) |
| p Value | – | 0.001 | 0.048 |
| Std effect size | – | 0.54 | 0.36 |
*Mean difference at follow-up can be thought of as mean in FACETS arm – mean in CLP arm (after subtracting any baseline differences). Analysis only includes participants with both baseline and follow-up data).
CLP, current local practice; FACETS, Fatigue: Applying Cognitive behavioural and Energy effectiveness Techniques to lifeStyle.