Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Oct 31, 2014.
The authors don't mention any biological research. They are very much into the psychobabble/biopsychosocial model.
From the introduction:
The results did not match the second of their predictions:
There were big differences in Figure 1 in terms of how the adolescent, mother and father rated the health of the adolescent.
The final figure for the Mother Report Physical Health Summary Scale was around 40 (out of 100).
The final figure for the Adolescent Report Physical Health Summary Scale was over 80 (out of 100).
I'm suspicious of the adolescent ratings. I think there is a possibility some might say they're well to get away. Alternatively, the therapy may have convinced them they were healthier than they really were.
Here's info on the diagnoses and precipitants, which the statistics showed influenced outcomes:
Summary of findings:
Thanks for Dolphin. I'd been meaning to look at this after seeing the abstract posted somewhere but the lack of a control group makes the whole thing so irritating.
I did wonder if they'd see that as reason to target psychological therapies to those who report psychological problems... or if they'd present it as evidence of the harm done to patient's by their belief that their illness has a physical cause.
Neither was mentioned, that I recall.
It is hard to conclude anything about the treatment of CFS compared to the other disorders as the data was not shown separately.
Secondly, the overall effect of the treatment for any patient is highly questionable, due to the large difference between parental and patient rating of scores, combined with the fact that no objective evidence of functioning was used.
In conclusion: no conclusion.
So tbe whole thing is just waffle? I wonder how much it cost.
The costs would have been much the same with or without the study, as these patients were studied as part of a regular treatment programme.
You'd think that would be a clue to the researchers, wouldn't you.
Well the 'researchers' must have received renumeration.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.