• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Evidence that patients are not necessarily happy with CBT & GET/CBT- and GET- based services

T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
I'm working on something for possible to publication.

I'm looking for some evidence that patients are not necessarily happy with CBT & GET/CBT- and GET- based services. I could quote more than one thing.

I might need to have it in the next few days though feel free to write later if you don't reply quickly.
 
T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
I'm wondering is there anything from Netherlands and/or Belgium where I know there has been some dissent about services that are available.
 
T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
Effi

Effi

Senior Member
Messages
1,496
Location
Europe
@Tom Kindlon It does literally say that they don't want CBT or GET.

Under the heading CBT (p.36) it says:
83 (x=14,87%) respondenten noemen expliciet de wens om CGT af te schaffen als behandeling voor ME. Daarnaast geven nog 108 (x=19,35%) respondenten aan dat ze willen dat men afstapt van de psychologische benadering van ME.
Click to expand...
translation:
83 (x = 14.87%) of the respondents explicitly mention the desire to abolish CBT as a treatment for ME. Additionally up to 108 (x = 19.35%) of respondents said they want to see things moving away from the psychological approach towards ME.

Then there's a bunch of quotes (to support these figures) that also mention GET alongside CBT. So I think when they say CBT they actually mean CBT/GET.
 
Research 1st

Research 1st

Severe ME, POTS & MCAS.
Messages
768
The best evidence that patients with CFS/ME aren't ''necessarily happy'' isn't hard to find.

They are deceased.

If people are dying on an approved therapy that has null effect (PACE) dead people are usually the best piece of evidence that this therapy needs to be stopped immediately on the grounds of safety.
 
T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
Research 1st said:
The best evidence that patients with CFS/ME aren't ''necessarily happy'' isn't hard to find.

They are deceased.

If people are dying on an approved therapy that has null effect (PACE) dead people are usually the best piece of evidence that this therapy needs to be stopped immediately on the grounds of safety.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have about people dying? I'm not sure there is much particularly something that could be quotable in a published article.
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I can't think of anything great for this from academic papers. I'm sure you've thought of that ME Association report on CBT/GET from last year: http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2015/05/23959/

Loads of the academic papers in this 'psychosocial' area are written by those providing CBT/GET, so they often put their own spin on things, even if there are hints that their approach is the problem (talk of illegitimacy, distrust, disbelief). In medical paper there tends to be more general talk of dissatisfaction with medical care.

There's stuff from patient groups/charities? Again, reporting in medical journal about patient cncern about CBT/GET tends to be written in an 'aren't they foolish' tone.
 
S

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Not quite what you are looking for, but the fact that the BPS school think that the main problem is just a public relations and marketing issue, and all they need to do is figure out how to package and sell their 'explanations and treatments' to patients, is good evidence that patients are not happy with either.
 
Seven7

Seven7

Seven
Messages
3,444
Location
USA
Tom Kindlon said:
CBT & GET/CBT- and GET- based services.
Click to expand...
Here is my question, we have been doing athletes for a while. So sport medicine is not like it is new or a huge revelation, why is GET done with none of the safe guards made w big athletes, monitor latic acid, monitor Oxigen vs Dioxide Carbon (however the word) ratio, Muscle breaking protein in the blood (to make sure there is no muscle hurt), metabolites.....

I mean if anybody wanted to do exercise the right way, it is not like we don't have the tests and technology (if we hook up the patient and monitor afterwards).

I was with a cfs exercise expert, she took me off the bike before I even tired and said you need to stop because you are already over and no oxygen is getting into you (I forgot the technical words but you get my drift).
 
Kati

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Hi @Tom Kindlon, it's an interesting question, because the 'evidence' that has been published is pro CBT, CBT/GET and GET, so my best bet would be you would find the evidence from ME Association polls perhaps, and from patient reports.

It reminds me of the local program here which is CBT based, and their website only posted positive testimonies about their programs.

Best of luck. I wish I could help.
 
S

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Pressure from patients has succeeded in moving the Suffolk & Norfolk NHS ME/CFS Unit to a biomed model, away from a BPS one:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...folk-nhs-me-cfs-center-goes-biomedical.40268/

The mover and shaker there is @elliepeabody. I wonder if she has data of the kind you're looking for?

I agree with Kati that an MEA poll might be a good bet, if they've run one. They've done a wide range of polls over the years.

You might also consider petitions as a form of evidence that patients aren't happy with CBT and GET (or, specifically, as the quality of the work underlying them).

There was the 12,000-signature #MEAction petition against misleading analyses in PACE, and the successful attempt by US patients to get the Oxford studies removed from the AHRQ Evidence Review - there are probably some harsh words about CBT/GET in their submission.

Hope this is useful, @Tom Kindlon. :)
 
S

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
There's also the 24 (?) patients' organisations who wrote open letters to QMUL to ask them to release the PACE data rather than go to tribunal. If they were all so thrilled with CBT and GET, it's hard to understand why they would do that.
 
S

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
@Tom Kindlon, here's the ME Association's poll archive:

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/archive-of-mea-surveys/

The top one there is helpful ("Following the re-analysis of the PACE trial data, should NICE remove its recommendations on CBT and GET?").

I got as far as page 7 and the only relevant one that far seemed to be a 2011 one: "How will the PACE trial results affect the NHS management of people with ME/CFS?" (The most popular reply was "Make it much worse".)
 
V

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
MEMum said:
What about @Valentijn . She lives in the Netherlands, and i believe her partner is Dutch.
Click to expand...
Dutch and busy. And I've got a bastard of a flu, so mostly in a daze currently.

My general recollection is that there was a Belgian study which found their CBT/GET clinics to be utterly useless. No idea if that included patient perceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.