# Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Different Intervention Strategies in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Depression

## TL;DR

People with ME/CFS try more diverse treatments than those with depression, possibly due to limited guidelines for ME/CFS.

## Contribution

Identifies distinct treatment-seeking behaviors and perceived helpfulness in ME/CFS versus depression patients.

## Key findings

- ME/CFS patients use more interventions like pacing and supplements compared to depression patients.
- Depression patients rely more on psychotherapy and antidepressants, rating fewer interventions as helpful.
- Supplements targeting energy metabolism are especially favored among ME/CFS participants.

## Abstract

Background: Patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) or depression both frequently report debilitating exhaustion, yet the two conditions differ in their etiological and diagnostic clarity, and clinical management. This study aimed to examine differences in the use and perceived helpfulness of a broad range of conventional treatments and complementary interventions, including nutritional approaches, between patients with ME/CFS and depression. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in 2024. A total of 819 participants self-identified as having either ME/CFS (n = 576) or depression (n = 243). Participants (80% female) reported their use and perceived helpfulness of 52 treatments and interventions, encompassing behavioral therapies, medications, and dietary supplements. Group differences were examined using multivariate analyses of variance and covariance (MANOVA/MANCOVA). Open-ended responses were analyzed descriptively using thematic grouping and frequency counts. Results: Participants with depression most commonly reported the use of psychotherapy (M = 2.49, SD = 1.00) and antidepressant medication (M = 2.44, SD = 2.30), and they rated fewer interventions as helpful compared to participants with ME/CFS. In contrast, participants with ME/CFS reported a significantly broader engagement with diverse intervention modalities, particularly pacing (M = 2.73, SD = 0.80) and dietary supplements (M = 2.43, SD = 1.09), and perceived many of them as helpful. Group differences remained significant after controlling for age, gender, and whether treatment was medically recommended. Supplements targeting energy metabolism (e.g., CoQ10, NADH) were especially favored among ME/CFS participants. Conclusions: Findings suggest that participants with ME/CFS tend to adopt an exploratory and expansive intervention approach, potentially reflecting the lack of standardized guidelines and limited effectiveness of available treatment options. Participants with depression, in contrast, appeared to follow more guideline-concordant, evidence-based treatment pathways. Taken together, the findings point to a need for further development and evaluation of empirically supported, patient-centered treatment and intervention strategies for ME/CFS and suggest differences in clinical care structures between ME/CFS and depression.