Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Jan 9, 2010.
Fred Springfield recently posted this to Co-Cure pointing out:
From an academic point of view, I thought there were some useful quotes in this. Things some in the CBT school
in the UK and probably the Netherlands wouldn't say.
I've left them in context a bit so it makes sense.
Of course, they are focussed on non-pharmacological interventions which I don't
think are sufficient in this condition. And the comments probably wouldn't be enough to change the situation in the Belgium. But I think it is interesting to see them.
(repeats comments from earlier, to an extent)
(The last point is subgrouping - it is mentioned above but explicitly makes the point. Those in UK and the Netherlands generally say CBT is useful for all patients)
I think this study: http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showth...tients-with-CFS-The-role-of-physical-activity is more interesting even though I didn't give the thread a catchy title. They found that people weren't doing more activity after CBT in three studies. The two older of these studies are often used to make the case for CBT improving fatigue and increasing physical functioning.
How interesting Tom - I hope charityfundraiser sees this - I'm fairly certain that some of the authors of this paper are the names that he quoted as being the Wessely/Whites of Belgium - maybe I'll PM him to confirm. If that's the case, I find this article presents some hope if they are recognizing to some extent that CBT/GET are not working and are recognizing sub-types. Maybe someday they'll GET (pun intended) that ME/CFS is an organic disease, and, as with all severe disease, counselling can help some people manage living with the disease better.
The authors in the paper in this thread could perhaps be said to be like that, although they have softened a bit in recent years - I don't know them as well as the UK and Dutch researchers.
The authors of the study that found no improvement in activity levels as measured by actometers are from the Netherlands. It should not be interpreted they have given up on CBT because of the results. There is no real softening of their language as such in the paper!
And I don't find it difficult to envisage somebody like Peter White softening.
Yes, I agree counselling can help some people with diseases cope with their illness which may directly or indirectly mean they manage their illness better.
FYI - I got charityfundraiser mixed up with s5044726. Have PMed him. Wonder if he has an insider's perspective.
While I would like all the psychologising to be taken out of the treatment of ME and CFS, I don't have so much of a problem with
this softer approach.
I believe that the clinics are staffed by people who just want to do their job and treat patients. They are following what they are told are the "facts" about CFS and have no particular agenda.
Actually asking people what their symptoms are and what they need, might lead to them learning what CFS truly is, at best and at worst, it won't do the damage that GET for all is causing.
The use of adaptive pacing and the quiet dropping of aggressive GET that is happening shows that it just wasn't working.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.