Invest in ME Conference 12: First Class in Every Way
OverTheHills wraps up our series of articles on this year's 12th Invest in ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London with some reflections on her experience as a patient attending the conference for the first time.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Lightening process website using ME Association survey as endorsement

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS Discussion' started by tinacarroll27, Sep 22, 2017.

  1. tinacarroll27

    tinacarroll27 Senior Member

    Messages:
    167
    Likes:
    657
    UK
    Just been to the lightening process website and it's quoting ME Association survey as an endorsement of the lightening process. This is what it says

    '
    ME Association’s 2010 Survey
    ‘Greatly improved’
    This survey compares the benefits of a number of different approaches to CFS/ME and includes statistics on the benefits of the Lightning Process.

    The ME association’s survey found that the Lightning Process came top of their poll for approaches that ‘greatly improved’ the symptoms of ME/CFS.The Lightning Process received the highest percentage out of all the 25 approaches for those feeling they had ‘greatly improved’ with 25.7%. The next closest was 14.8% for modafinil/provigil (a stimulant/analeptic). Another 18.8% felt the LP had helped them improve (totalling 44.5%).

    CBT, being one of the mainstays of NHS approaches to this illness is useful as a yardstick 2.8% ‘greatly improved’, 23.1% ‘improved’.

    The fact that the leading ME charity is assessing how well clients did by using the Lightning Process for their ME, and found it was rated as the most helpful, supports the perspective that the Lightning Process is a suitable approach for some with ME .'

    Here is a link to the survey; http://www.meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010-survey-report-lo-res10.pdf

    I looked at the survey and it does say that 25% greatly improved with LP BUT when you look at the
    responses for LP, you only had 101 responses as apposed to 2137 responses for pacing. I may be wrong here but isn't 11% of 2137 responses(235 people greatly improved) better than 25% of 101 responses (25 greatly improved). If you look at the total improved pacing was 71.2%. So that is out of 2137 responses. When you look at LP you have total improved 49.3% out of 101 responses. Have I got this right?It seems to me that overall Pacing did better. Am I right? I am not great at stats or math but I don't see this as anything special for LP, like their website is making out and should be removed because to me this is misleading and not what the ME Association survey is saying. They are trying to make out that the ME Association is endorsing the LP, which I don't think it is.
     
    Ellie_Finesse, Woolie, alkt and 8 others like this.
  2. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge plodder

    Messages:
    770
    Likes:
    3,491
    yes I think ive seen this mentioned elsewhere my thinking MEA could put another web page in place of the one at the URL linked to that has a statement saying they do not endorse the LP and dont approve of them misusing MEA data
     
  3. Jenny TipsforME

    Jenny TipsforME Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes:
    3,822
    Bristol
    I'm not sure what you mean about the maths but it looks like 25 people greatly improved on LP. This isn't a high number but it is a quarter of those who did it.

    55% didn't improve on LP which, given the nature of the process, is actually quite high (a proportion of the people saying they've improved are likely to be obeying the process regardless of how they actually feel).
     
  4. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

    I've posted these elsewhere but what he doesn't quote is

    Screen shot 2017-09-20 at 10.32.35.png
    or this
    Screen shot 2017-09-20 at 10.33.11.png
     
    Ellie_Finesse, Woolie, alkt and 6 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page