Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty

White, Peter D, Chalder, Trudie, Sharpe, Michael, Angus, Brian J, Baber, Hannah L, Bavinton, Jessica, Burgess, Mary, Clark, Lucy V ORCID:, Cox, Diane L, DeCesare, Julia C, Goldsmith, Kimberley A, Johnson, Anthony L, McCrone, Paul, Murphy, Gabrielle, Murphy, Maurice, O’Dowd, Hazel, Potts, Laura, Walwyn, Rebacca and Wilks, David (2017) Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty. Journal of Health Psychology, 22 (9). pp. 1113-1117. ISSN 1359-1053

[thumbnail of Accepted manuscript]
PDF (Accepted manuscript) - Accepted Version
Download (57kB) | Preview


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.

Item Type: Article
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Health Sciences
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 16 Aug 2017 05:05
Last Modified: 22 Oct 2022 02:57
DOI: 10.1177/1359105316688953

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item