Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Thanks Wildcat,
Interesting that the primary outcome measure has now been changed. I wonder if that was out of these concerns and if the MEA and Tyme have anything further to add in light of this change? I doubt it will change their concern but I will ask.
This is the reasoning they gave:
Primary outcome
During the study, parents and participants commented that the school attendance primary outcome did not accurately reflect what they were able to do, particularly if they were recruited during, or had transitioned to, A levels during the study. This is because it was not clear what ‘100% of expected attendance’ was. In addition, we were aware of some
participants who had chosen not to increase school attendance despite increased activity.
I totally agree with @wdb 's citing of that thread.
School attendance was never a great outcome measure, but it's a lot better than SF36-PF and Chalder Fatigue Scale scores. Measuring the supposed efficacy of something like the Lightning Process with self-report questionnaires is just a joke. nIf they wanted a more comprehensive measure of activity, they should have used actometers.
This is from the paper:
The Phil Parker Lightning Process® (LP) is a trademarked intervention that is used for a variety of conditions including CFS/ME. It was developed from osteopathy, life coaching and neurolinguistic programming. The LP trains individuals to recognize when they are stimulating or triggering unhelpful physiological responses and to avoid these, using a set of
standardized questions, new language patterns and physical movements with the aim of improving a more appropriate response to situations (www.lightningprocess.com). The intervention includes three group sessions on consecutive days where participants are taught theories and skills, which are then practised through simple steps, posture and coaching.
Is there any evidence that these claims are true? Does LP train train individuals to recognise when they are stimulating or triggering unhelpful physiological responses, and avoiding them? Is it not unethical and repulsive to claim that it does without good supporting evidence?
Here's the info that was given to the kids (they avoid mentioning the obviously quacky NLP and osteopathy):
What is the Lightning Process?
The Lightning Process is based on the idea that the body and mind work together to affect
your health. It is a training programme, run as a course on three consecutive days (for 3
hours 45 minutes a day) in a group with up to five other young people aged between 12 and
18 years old. The course is run by a Lightning Process Practioner who is trained and licensed
to run the course. The courses will be held somewhere near you, either in a clinic or hospital,
or in a hotel or community hall. Where ever it is held, it will be suitable for the course and for
young people your age.
There are regular breaks throughout the course and a mixture of group and individual
discussions. Each day the course will include a theory session and a practical session. In the
theory session, teenagers learn about stress and its physical effects, how the mind-body
interacts and how thought processes can be helpful and unhelpful. In the practical session,
teenagers identify goals they wish to achieve (for example, standing for longer) and are given
different ways to think about and prepare for this. They then have the chance to practise this
on the course with the Lightning Process practitioner there to support them.
A parent can attend and a researcher may be present to watch the session. Teenagers are
given up to 30 minutes homework each day so they can continue
http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/smile-–-specialist-medical-intervention-and-lightning-evaluation-documents/
In these sessions, do the kids really learn about how the mind-body interacts and how thought processes can be helpful and unhelpful? Is there good evidence to support the claims that are made to them during these sessions? Or is it just misleading quackery? The Advertising Standards Authority seems to think that there's rather too much quackery in some of the claims made by Phil Parker and his followers.
Last edited: