Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Sep 2, 2013.
This was a group CBT study by the way.
*I gave each sentence its own paragraph
Let me see if I get this.... people with psychological issues (poor acceptance and neuroticism) benefit from psychological intervention (CBT), while people with the same illness, but not psychological issues don't benefit from CBT. Brilliant conclusion.
The authors said this about the form of CBT they used:
Reference 12 is a Nijmegen reference.
This is available at: https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1009C&L=CO-CURE&P=R1774&I=-3&d=No Match;Match;Matches
This form of CBT is not something that encourages acceptance; it is pretty much the opposite.
Remember what they found was that people with lower levels of acceptance at the start did better. A lot of the discussion is about what is required is therapies that are good at encouraging acceptance.
From what I've picked up, the Belgians generally don't think now CBT leads to recovery so there is a chance what they used isn't like the Nijmegen CBT.
It would be interesting to explore all this in a letter. Unfortunately, I don't see myself doing this as I have quite a lot of work to get through.
The study contains some ordinary treatment data:
Here is information on those two measures:
The ‘mental and physical component summary scores’ are usually given as normalised scores in my experience (with population mean of 50). However these don't look normalised scores (the MQoL score is 57 after therapy, which is quite a lot better than the general population) so I'm not sure exactly what is being shown.
Very often in CFS papers, the CIS score is given out of 56 i.e. in this case the pre-score would have been 51.44 and after 48.
48 isn't really a great score. The main reason this has a moderate effect is because the SD is quite small (possibly due to lots of close at or near 56).
There were some deteriorations on individual measures, but they don't talk about them much.
They were defined as follows:
ah the Belgians again, trying to keep their fat useless asses out of law suits and jail, so they come up with this crap
Reminds me of the end of the Third Reich, with knobends in the Hitler bunker playing with toy tanks, showing how they KNEW how to win the war!
and the war's long lost and many folk have suffered for their hubris and inhumanity
*pulls down zip, takes a long leak on the psychobabblers*
Far out if me/cfs could be cured or helped by this we would all be either doing it or all damn well cured by now.total crock!
Wouldn't a better conclusion be: CBT should only be provided to patients with high levels of 'neuroticism'?
Technically, I'm not sure one could say this with the evidence they present - it didn't explain enough of the variance:
What, you mean, psychiatrists?
Hmmmm, neuroticism as defined by the DSM? By a bunch of psychs sitting around a beer asking themselves what sounds like a nifty diagnosis? Rigor needs to be returned to psychiatry before we can talk about them defining neuroticism ... not that psychiatric diagnoses have ever been robust.
Its a lot like what little I have read from religious witch-hunters. Some of the people they looked at were obviously sick, but they had no scientific/medical way to determine what was wrong. So they dreamt up various unlikely stories about demons and Satan, which gave the Church credibility and power. As a result they could torture, incarcerate and execute people with impugnity, based on nothing more than official fantasies.
a) House of Cards
b) The Emperor's New Clothes
c) psychological sophistry
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
f) Beam me up, Scotty. This planet sucks.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.