Severe ME Day of Understanding and Remembrance: Aug. 8, 2017
Determined to paper the Internet with articles about ME, Jody Smith brings some additional focus to Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Day of Understanding and Remembrance on Aug. 8, 2017 ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: Differences in treatment outcome between a

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by A.B., Jun 16, 2016.

  1. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes:
    21,711
    Another paper by our favorite miracle workers:

    Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: Differences in treatment outcome between a tertiary treatment centre in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands
    • Treatment outcome of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was compared in two tertiary treatment centres in the Netherlands and the U.K.
    • Effect sizes on fatigue severity and impairment differed between centres.
    • Differences in patient characteristics could not explain variations in outcome.
    • Differences in treatment protocols may be responsible for outcome differences.
    • More attention should be paid to variation in treatment protocols in relation to outcome, to further develop and improve CBT for CFS.
    http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(16)30328-2/abstract
     
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes:
    29,330
    I think this emphasises the fact that nobody actually knows what CBT is. Is it just talking to somebody, or talking to somebody with a nice blue cardigan, or talking to somebody you wouldn't want to upset so you say you are better to keep them happy or talking to someone with something useful to say that you could not read in a book (and if so what the heck is it?). It would be useful to know because it it's just nice blue cardigans then it would save a lot of expensive 'psychology training'.
     
    soti, loops, Dolphin and 31 others like this.
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,578
    Likes:
    12,174
    South Australia
    I know, perhaps it's due to the inherent uncertainty due to using subjective outcome measures with a therapy that is explicitly designed to change how people report subjective outcomes!
     
    barbc56, meandthecat, Sea and 11 others like this.
  4. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes:
    13,176
    The only good thing about this article is seeing some of our favourite PACE authors intertwined with some of the Dutch folks on an actual publication.

    There goes that "independent assessment of PACE by researchers outside of the UK".

    Hey, how about the pink background on the Journal of Psychosomatic Research? I think that really adds credibility, no?
     
    barbc56, Snow Leopard, Sea and 14 others like this.
  5. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes:
    21,711
    I'm more wondering how they conclude that differences in patient characteristis are not responsible for the difference in results. The UK patients are sicker. A rather obvious explanation would be that they are less likely to respond to placebo therapies such as CBT. That said, the effect sizes are very large. Miracle workers indeed.
     
    Bob and Invisible Woman like this.
  6. sarah darwins

    sarah darwins I told you I was ill

    Messages:
    2,415
    Likes:
    10,009
    Cornwall, UK
    I can't seem to see where they say when they measured the 'effect'. Am I missing that?
     
  7. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes:
    21,711
    The effect size of 1.74 reported by Dutch clinics for fatigue means that about 95% of the control group fell below the average person in the intervention group.

    An effect size of 0.99, reported by UK clinics for fatigue and by Dutch clinics for physical function means that about 84% of the control group fell below the average person in the intervention group.

    Effect sizes of 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 were defined as "small", "medium", "large" by Cohen.

    http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm
     
    Valentijn and Vasha like this.
  8. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes:
    16,489
    However I think the assumptions behind Cohen's test may not be met with the scales used.
     
    Valentijn, Snow Leopard and A.B. like this.
  9. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes:
    29,330
    There weren't any controls were there?
    'Effect' could just be regression to the mean here couldn't it?
    I cannot see how any judgment about 'size of effect' can be made.
     
    Valentijn, Bob, Dolphin and 1 other person like this.
  10. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes:
    16,489

    It may also depend on how the chose the standard deviation as I think that is not defined in the method.
     
  11. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes:
    17,048
     
  12. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes:
    13,176
    Effect size is just the difference between the mean score before and after treatment, expressed as a standardised score. it means you can look at the value and get an instant idea of how big the effect was.

    What @user9876 said was right:
    So the effect sizes in the Netherlands are massive.

    I can't see the main paper, but there were no controls. So these are just measures of how much people who got treated improved on self reported fatigue, physical function and on a work and social adjustment questionnaire.

    So you need to bear in mind that there could be huge "improvements" in people who didn't have CBT (there ceratinly were in the PACE control group). They may just be due to spontaneous improvement, or other stuff (like the mst severely affected people dropping out over time, which would make the average go up). You can't really make much of it without a control group.

    It seems you don't need any of that annoying science stuff to publish in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. I'll leave @Jonathan Edwards to chime in with his own theories there...;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2016
    Valentijn, Bob, MEMum and 3 others like this.
  13. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes:
    29,330
    But in the same sense that the difference between 25mm diameter waste pipes and inch diameter (25.4mm) waste pipes is 'massive', perhaps, because there is no overlap at all if the maximum variation is less than 0.1mm? The difference may truly be massive for a plumber because if he mixes them up the junctions will simply not fit. But for a child using the pipe as a didgeridoo the difference is indiscernible. Just damn lies and statistics it seems to me. How does one have a standard deviation of a pooled population one has decided, using this standard deviation, is not a single Gaussian distribution?
     
  14. Keith Geraghty

    Keith Geraghty Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes:
    3,205
    Ive written two articles that speak about how subjective outcomes in CBT may come from a combination of therapy effect (someone listening), advice on stress management and sleep, and placebo --- rather than cognitive restructuring. I would really like to take my ideas forward with some kind of study to look more closely at what CBT actually involves and to ask patients about what it did for them. I am working on a proposal but think it would be hard to get funded, given the overwhelming populaity of CBT by NIHR (NHS) and so on.

    What we need is some kind of trial of false CBT - this might be tricky to set up.

    Jr of Psychosomatic Research does seem to be the 'go-to' journal for the PACE team.
     
  15. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes:
    13,176
    @Jonathan Edwards, I was looking forward to your theories on the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, actually. Always get a laugh at that!

    The CI's are 95% confidence intervals. There are a relatively conservative measure of the uncertainty surrounding an estimate.The 95% CI represent the range (its upper and lower limits) in which the effect size would be likely to fall if you redid the study 100 times each time taking a new sample but applying the same methodology (actually 95 of the effect sizes should lie in that range).

    They are always wide, because they aim to encompass almost the entire range where the effect size could be expected to lie. They are used in biology too, and they are large there too. Ignore these - they are not where the problem is.
     
    MEMum and Vasha like this.
  16. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes:
    21,711
    Alternatively, real CBT for a problem that cannot improve with CBT, demonstrating how CBT can successfully create an illusion of improvement. Bonus points if the effect size is large. Extra bonus points if the CBT leads to people neglecting the problem due to having been brainwashed to view it as nonproblem or less serious than it is.
     
  17. Living Dead

    Living Dead Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    265
    My impression is that they are already using false CBT.

    Original CBT for depression (which does not seem to be what is used for CFS) means to examine thoughts for logical errors, such as using "it always happens to me", when in fact it only happens 60% of the time.

    Lecturing to patients that "you aren't sick, you are misinterpreting the signals from your body" doesn't really fit with the original description of CBT.

    I don't know how much of either method is used in these studies, though.
     
  18. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes:
    13,176
    @A.B.'s idea is nice. Another variation on this theme is to include an "organic" control (e.g. MS, lupus). If its CBT for CFS, the control group will probably exhibit similar improvements to the target group.

    Trouble is, many CBT proponents will claim this as a win, because "every illness has a psychological component".

    For some ideas for some good control conditions for CBT, see Lynch D, Laws KR and McKenna PJ. Cognitive behavioural therapy for major psychiatric disorder: does it really work? A meta-analytical review of well-controlled trials. Psychological Medicine 2010; 40: 9-24.
     
  19. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes:
    21,711
    Something like this maybe? Different interventions for asthma. The first graph shows self rated breathing, the second shows objectively measured breathing. Finding patients willing to believe that CBT could help with asthma might be difficult.

    sub.png fev.png
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103319#t=article
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2016
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes:
    29,330
    Don't think I said anything about CI's actually! I agree that the problem is not to do with them.
     
    Woolie likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page