A Biopsychosocial Approach to HIV Fatigue: A Cross-Sectional and Prospective Analysis to Identify Key Modifiable Factors, 2020, Chalder et al

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
This study aimed to identify the prevalence and predictors of current fatigue and fatigue at 1-year follow-up, in people with HIV. Participants were recruited from HIV outpatient clinics in London, England. We explored a range of bio-psychosocial factors associated with current fatigue severity, identifying the most salient factors in a multifactorial model. A prospective study explored the predictive value of specific psychological and behavioral factors in predicting fatigue severity at one year.

Sixty-four of 131 (49%) participants met the criteria for clinically significant fatigue at baseline. Psychological and behavioral variables, but not immune-virologic markers or antiretroviral treatment, were associated with current fatigue severity. In the multifactorial model, catastrophizing and distress independently predicted current fatigue severity. Higher levels of fatigue at 1 year was predicted by baseline catastrophizing, symptom focusing, distress and sleep quality, when controlling for baseline fatigue, clinical and demographic variables.

These findings suggest psychological and behavioral factors are important in the maintenance of fatigue in people with HIV and identify potential opportunities for treatment. Future interventions for fatigue in HIV should not only address anxiety, depression and distress but could be optimized by targeting psychological processes such as catastrophic thinking styles and symptom focusing.
Click to expand...
Paywall, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08964289.2020.1712582
Sci hub, https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/08964289.2020.1712582
 
Where does the money come from to do these studies?? Seriously?? Why not just do some psychosocial studies on chronically ill patients in general, I'm sure social help would be very useful for a lot of people. Why do the same studies on every disease, it doesn't make any sense....
 
unicorn7 said:
Where does the money come from to do these studies?? Seriously?? Why not just do some psychosocial studies on chronically ill patients in general, I'm sure social help would be very useful for a lot of people. Why do the same studies on every disease, it doesn't make any sense....
Click to expand...
From the paper
Funding AH and TC are part funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, England.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, another Chalder study where you know the outcome before reading it because the outcome is always the same, the methodology is the same and nothing actually matters. At this point I'm pretty sure that on every new paper where her name appears at least half of the content is literally copy-pasted from a template. Almost all of Chalder's research and papers are nearly the exact same thing, and equally substance-free.

As usual of course "catastrophizing" as predictor essentially shows that self-assessment of disability is relatively accurate. When you read the details the substance is exactly identical as with ME, MUS (wait, no, SSD) and basically every other BPS paper.
Funding AH and TC are part funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Center at South London
Click to expand...
So they wasted biomedical funding on psychosocial crap? At least if there's one thing that's not missing in HIV research it's funding but this is still blatant misuse of research funding.

Neither Chalder nor any of her colleagues have any idea what fatigue is and it is freakishly embarrassing that she still gets funding for doing the same things over and over again in a circle, a genuine ouroboros of bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom