biophile
Places I'd rather be.
- Messages
- 8,977
Maybe I should not have bothered to write a letter-esque post with a dozen references, but it was providing solid background information in order to ask the following important questions which the experts should be able to answer:
1) "So if CBT and GET on average do not actually increase total activity levels or increase engagement in other normal life activities, why is it still being promoted as doing so, and is this not encouraging false expectations about prognosis and the nature of improvements attributed to CBT/GET?"
2) "Is it therefore possible that the safety of these therapies depends not just on avoiding pushing too hard too fast i.e. so-called "boom-bust", but also on avoiding significant increases in total activity levels, because patients were generally correct about an activity ceiling hindering functional rehabilitation?"
I re-asked these questions under Valentijn's new post:
http://www.talkhealthpartnership.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=4755&p=13919#p13919
1) "So if CBT and GET on average do not actually increase total activity levels or increase engagement in other normal life activities, why is it still being promoted as doing so, and is this not encouraging false expectations about prognosis and the nature of improvements attributed to CBT/GET?"
2) "Is it therefore possible that the safety of these therapies depends not just on avoiding pushing too hard too fast i.e. so-called "boom-bust", but also on avoiding significant increases in total activity levels, because patients were generally correct about an activity ceiling hindering functional rehabilitation?"
I re-asked these questions under Valentijn's new post:
http://www.talkhealthpartnership.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=4755&p=13919#p13919