Table 4

 Risk of non-CFS fatigue caseness compared with no fatigue caseness at 44 month follow up in employees fatigued at baseline (n = 1049)

PredictorsMultiple logistic regression models
Baseline predictors only* OR (per SD) (95% CI)Baseline and follow up predictors† OR (per SD) (95% CI)
Predictor values are significant odds ratios (95% CI) adjusted for all other predictors in the model. Values of continuous predictors are expressed as OR per SD. t3, one year assessment; t6, two year assessment. *Full model included age, sex, educational level, work status, pregnancy, all four CIS-subscales, all three MBI-subscales, need for recovery, self rated fatigue complaints, impairment in work, impairment in activities, psychological distress, anxious mood, visits to GP, self rated health, health complaints, sleep disturbances, all assessed at baseline. †Full model included CIS-fatigue (baseline), CIS-fatigue change score (t3–t0), CIS-fatigue change score (t6–t0), CIS-activity (baseline), CIS-activity change score (t3–t0), CIS-activity change score (t6–t0), MBI-exhaustion (baseline), MBI-exhaustion change score (t3–t0), MBI-exhaustion change score (t6–t0), anxiety (baseline), anxiety change score (t3–t0), anxiety change score (t6–t0), self rated health (baseline), self rated health change bad to good (t0–t3), self rated health change good to bad (t0–t3), self rated health change bad to good (t3–t6), self rated health change good to bad (t3–t6).
Continuous
Fatigue severity (CIS)1.24 (1.05 to 1.37)1.96 (1.61 to 2.26)
- change score t3–t01.35 (1.23 to 1.65)
- change score t6–t02.31 (1.88 to 2.82)
Self perceived activity (CIS)1.18 (1.04 to 1.35)
- change score t6–t00.78 (0.67 to 0.91)
Exhaustion (MBI)1.31 (1.13 to 1.53)
Anxious mood1.22 (1.06 to 1.40)1.29 (1.10 to 1.49)
Dichotomous
Self rated health (good = 1)0.64 (0.48 to 0.85)0.58 (0.40 to 0.84)
- change t0–t3 “bad to good”0.57 (0.34 to 0.97)