Non-pharmacological interventions for self-management of fatigue in adults: An umbrella review of potential interventions... 2023 Brown et al

Full title: Non-pharmacological interventions for self-management of fatigue in adults: An umbrella review of potential interventions to support patients recovering from critical illness

Highlights

• Self-management is effective for fatigue caused by physical conditions.
• Self-management for other conditions has potential for critical illness fatigue.
• Health professional-guided interventions may be more effective than self-guided.
• Clear self-management definitions and standard outcome measures are needed.

Abstract

Purpose
Fatigue is a common symptom after critical illness. However, evidence-based interventions for fatigue after critical illness are lacking. We aimed to identify interventions to support self-management of fatigue caused by physical conditions and assess their effectiveness and suitability for adaptation for those with fatigue after critical illness.

Materials and methods
We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews. Databases included CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index (BNI), Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), JBI Evidence Synthesis Database, and PROSPERO register. Included reviews were appraised using the JBI Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Results were summarised narratively.

Results
Of the 672 abstracts identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Reviews focused on cancer (n = 8), post-viral fatigue (n = 1), and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) (n = 1). Primary studies often did not address core elements of self-management. Positive outcomes were reported across all reviews, and interventions involving facilitator support appeared to be most effective.

Conclusions
Self-management can be effective at reducing fatigue symptoms and improving quality of life for physical conditions and has clear potential for supporting people with fatigue after critical illness, but more conclusive data on effectiveness and clearer definitions of self-management are required.

Open access, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088394412300028X

 

some one forgot to tell them that abstracts are no more reliable than advertising blurb on book covers or video games. makes their work worthless
.

 

Extremely random and generic. Most are for cancer, interventions are all over the place. You could pretty much substitute with "have whomever do whatever works, I guess" and lose nothing of value. You pretty much have to accept a definition of "effective" that doesn't mean anything. Which is basically EBM in a nutshell.

This is not a valid way to assess anything. Mythbusters were more rigorous in everything they did. Hell, the average programmer is more rigorous than this.

 

This seems to be the review on fatigue after post-viral illness that they included:

A mixed-methods systematic review of post-viral fatigue interventions: Are there lessons for long Covid? | PLOS ONE

 

Thread here, A mixed-methods systematic review of post-viral fatigue interventions: Are there lessons for long Covid?, 2021, Fowler-Davis et al