• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

(FINE) Factors influencing engagement of patients in a novel intervention for CFS/ME (Chew-Graham)

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Free full text: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/10366/1/ccgetalfinalpub2011.pdf


Factors influencing engagement of patients in a novel intervention for CFS/ME: a qualitative study.

Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2011 Apr;12(2):112-22. doi: 10.1017/S146342361000037X.

Chew-Graham C, Brooks J, Wearden A, Dowrick C, Peters S.

Source
School of Community-Based Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. cchew@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract*

AIM:

To establish what factors are important for patients to engage in a new intervention for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and make recommendations to general practitioners (GPs) on preparing a patient for referral to such a service.

BACKGROUND:

NICE guidelines recommend a prominent role for primary care in the management of patients with CFS/ME, with prompt diagnosis and appropriate referral for evidence-based treatments.

METHODS:

A qualitative study nested within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of two new nurse therapist delivered interventions.

Semi-structured interviews carried out with 19 patients who had received pragmatic rehabilitation (PR) in the trial.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and an iterative approach used to develop themes from the data set.

FINDINGS:

Factors that influence whether or not a patient engages with PR for CFS/ME are ensuring that the patient feels accepted and believed, that they accept the diagnosis, and that the model implicated by the treatment offered to the patient matches the model of illness held by the patient.

If patients hold a clearly incompatible model of their illness, it is unlikely that they will engage with, and successfully complete, therapy.

It is vital that the GP elicits and explores such illness beliefs either before making a referral to maximise patient engagement in therapy, or that an initial session with the therapist explores attitudes to the treatment model offered and then works with the patient's model.

PMID: 21457596 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


*I've given each sentence its own paragraph
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
From introduction:

There is considerable evidence that when people experience a threat to their health such as symptoms or chronic illness, they are motivated to form an understanding or personal model of that threat, to guide their attempts to neutralise the threat, that is to get well (Leventhal et al., 1984). In the case of CFS/ME, where there is no medical explanation for fatigue and often no treatment advice forthcoming, patients struggle to make sense of their illness, and may develop models of their illness in which fluctuating symptoms are interpreted as evidence of bodily damage or relapse (Deary et al., 2007). Cognitive behavioural approaches to CFS/ME may help patients consider whether their personal model of their illness is helpful for them in their attempts to become well.
Part 1 of underlined bit: the symptoms could be a sign of relapse

Part 2 of underlined bit: CBT approaches to CBT/ME tend to be more directive than they are saying, with not all personal models being acceptable.

Pragmatic rehabilitation (PR) is a therapist facilitated self-management intervention for CFS/ ME, which shares features in common with CBT and GET, but which does not require a specialist CBT or physiotherapist to deliver it. PR conceptualises the symptoms experienced by people with CFS/ME as a consequence of physiological dysregulation, including cardiovascular and muscular deconditioning and disruption of sleep– wake cycles. PR differs from conventional CBT in that the treatment starts with an explicit presentation of the PR explanatory model for CFS/ME, supported by a referenced manual. Treatment involves a graded activity schedule carefully monitored to be well within the patient’s abilities, with gradual increments, regularisation of sleep, and the collaborative development of plans working towards rehabilitation (Wearden and Chew-Graham, 2006). There is evidence that PR is effective in secondary care (Powell et al., 2001) and a recent trial (Wearden et al., 2006) suggests that PR is effective for some patients in primary care, but the effect is not sustained (Wearden et al., 2010).
The underlined bit is talking about the FINE Trial results. "Effective" is probably overstating it.

-----
Results:
Table 3 has some results (remember these aren't all the results).

SF-36 physical functioning scores

If take the 17 where we have results before and after:
Before:
Mean 30.88
SD 16.61
SEM 4.03
N 17
90% CI 23.85 to 37.91
95% CI 22.34 to 39.42
99% CI 19.12 to 42.65
Minimum 0
Median 30
Maximum 60


After:



Mean 44.12
SD 30.53
SEM 7.40
N 17
90% CI 31.19 to 57.04
95% CI 28.42 to 59.81
99% CI 22.49 to 65.74
Minimum 0
Median 45
Maximum 95




If take all 19
Before:

Mean 30.26
SD 16.11
SEM 3.70
N 19
90% CI 23.85 to 36.67
95% CI 22.50 to 38.03
99% CI 19.62 to 40.90
Minimum 0
Median 30
Maximum 60


Using last value carried forward:


Mean 42.11
SD 29.60
SEM 6.79
N 19
90% CI 30.33 to 53.88
95% CI 27.84 to 56.37
99% CI 22.56 to 61.65
Minimum 0
Median 35
Maximum 95

These are better results that the overall PR sample i.e. they were selective (they said they were selective but it wasn't clear in what direction):
Baseline (n=95):
Mean (SD) 29.84 (17.86)

Follow up (n=85):
39.94 (25.21)

Within the 17 for whom we have both figures, although overall there was a big increase, three deteriorated:
10->0
35->0
55->45

This shows that just because a group can improve on average, it doesn't mean nobody has deteriorated.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
It is interesting to see how many of the patients were sucked in, because the therapists were sympathetic and listened to them etc (see Results: "Feeling accepted by the therapist" and also "Own acceptance of diagnosis")

-------
However, not all the patients were uncritical by the end:

But the other thing that upsets me about that is that when the nurse came round and explained the theory to me, it was sold to me as fact, this is what is happening, there was no element of this is actually quite a contentious issue, I have done some research since and found evidence supporting both camps and there was no part of that session that said there are some people that don’t believe this.


Several patients held a model of the illness, which
implied that activity was potentially damaging, so
patients were fearful of relapse.


Well the sections here [in the manual], I have
marked them, like the section here that I didn’t
really agree with and I tried to tell her that I
didn’t agree, erm, like it says there is no hidden
disease, I think there could be something
that they haven’t found you know. But activity/
exercise cannot harm you, I think it can
harm you, if you are not good and you really,
really push yourself you can relapse, definitely.
And I did try to tell her that, but I think
she was, rigid to the book and she thought that
was exact, I didn’t.

It is unworkable in my opinion. From, I mean I went into this feeling very positive, feeling that I understood the theory, and feeling that it made sense and its something that I wanted to work for me and it was good for me because it made me think right I can take this into my own hands, I can make myself better, but I don’t believe the fundamentals are right and you know, one of the most documented things about this illness is the delayed effect of activity and you know that is quite a basic principle and so is the principle of resting for 10 minutes and then you know you are within your limits and they don’t go together at all.
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Factors that influence whether or not a patient engages with PR for CFS/ME are ensuring that the patient feels accepted and believed, that they accept the diagnosis, and that the model implicated by the treatment offered to the patient matches the model of illness held by the patient.

If patients hold a clearly incompatible model of their illness, it is unlikely that they will engage with, and successfully complete, therapy.

Bunch of f**king geniuses we got working on our behalf, hey folks?
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
The authors basically blame the patients for it not working. They also say GPs can be problems.

Thus, we suggest that a patient needs to feel that they are believed and understood by the therapist before engaging in the treatment offered. Engagement can help the patient accept their own illness and formulate an adequate explanation for the symptoms experienced. If the patient’s model of illness, either pre-existing or so formulated, is in agreement with that of the therapist, the patient feels further reassured that the therapist has a real and genuine understanding of them and their condition and thus continues to engage in the treatment. Similarly, where models of treatment match, the patient will engage with the intervention. If, however, there is no matching of the patient’s model of the cause of their symptoms of the model of treatment offered, engagement and working with the intervention offered is unlikely.
They don't mention that a patient can agree with the theory, or be willing to give it a try, but their body "doesn't agree"/"can't cope" with the suggestions

A number of respondents rejected the inflexibility of the presentation of the model, and this may be due to the intervention being presented within a randomised controlled trial, and may be less of an issue in development of a service based on this model of intervention, where more flexibility could be offered.
I'm not sure how true this is in this case, unless they are willing for patients not to stick to the suggestions.

An important aspect of the process of engaging patients and forming a therapeutic alliance with them is the development of an agreed model of the patients’ problems, which provides the rationale for shared, collaborative goals for treatment. We know from other conditions that when patients and their doctors share an explanatory model, patients are more satisfied with their treatment (Callan and Littlewood, 1998).
However, these models for ME/CFS with manuals are prescriptive. The only model allowed is the one in the manual.

Previous work with the pragmatic rehabilition model has shown that it can be very effective in helping patients to get better (Powell et al., 2001), but this study suggests that if the model is not believed by patients, it is less effective (Wearden et al., 2010).
They didn't really show that the current study showed this. They just quoted various patients, but didn't show any correlation with outcome or really talk about this i.e. didn't say: here's a patient who did well and here is what they said, etc.

A further factor influencing the extent to which interventions are perceived as acceptable by patients is the degree to which the models of the illness held by patient and clinician match. The association between beliefs about illness and illness outcomes is well established (Hagger and Orbell, 2003) and interventions need to take into account existing beliefs, patient’s past experience and prior ways of managing illness. If the GP does not have a model of illness for CFS/ME, has difficulty or reluctance in making the diagnosis of CFS/ME (Chew-Graham et al., 2010) then successful initial management in primary care and appropriate referral will be unlikely.
I don't recall any quotes from patients about what their GPs said. It may be true that GPs may not diagnose or refer for the reasons they give, but don't believe they have shown much about a GP's attitude influencing the outcome.

(minor)
Clinical implications This study has important implications, not just for the management of people with CFS/ME, but also for the patients with other medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), or psychological symptoms that are not easily categorised by current diagnostic systems. Given that the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) initiative (Department of Health, 2008) is being proposed as a model for dealing with patients with MUS, these findings are relevant to the referral pathways and treatment models offered.
I thought it might be somewhat interesting in terms of understanding all patients and how they engage with therapy.
 

Sam Carter

Guest
Messages
435
The authors basically blame the patients for it not working. They also say GPs can be problems.

....

This is classic cognitive dissonance at play. The psycho-social school are so confident their model is correct that when data suggests it might not be, they have to find reasons for the discordance that don't involve modifying their own beliefs.

Imagine the panic when they found out that, having promised "100% recovery" in patients who have "no disease", their therapy was no better than a few trips to the GP.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
Even from the 17, we can tell something is different (e.g. not just a simple case of some improved) just from noting the change in mean and the very large change in SD.


Before:
Mean 30.88
SD 16.61

After:
Mean 44.12
SD 30.53


the SD almost doubled.

Of course, Dolphin showed us 3 who deteriorated:

Within the 17 for whom we have both figures, although overall there was a big increase, three deteriorated:
10->0
35->0
55->45

but not all papers give such data.

If I'm not mistaken, checking SD is something that can be used to guess at this in other papers which are not so clear about individual results.
 

Purple

Bundle of purpliness
Messages
489
Within the 17 for whom we have both figures, although overall there was a big increase, three deteriorated:
10->0
35->0
55->45

Are these SF36 Physical Function scores?

If so - a score 0f 0 can indicate that the person is housebound or chairbound and needs help with personal care or that the person is bedbound or worse. This scale does not distinguish this well , IMO.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Within the 17 for whom we have both figures, although overall there was a big increase, three deteriorated:
10->0
35->0
55->45

Are these SF36 Physical Function scores?

If so - a score 0f 0 can indicate that the person is housebound or chairbound and needs help with personal care or that the person is bedbound or worse. This scale does not distinguish this well , IMO.
Yes, SF36 Physical Function scores (I've edited previous message following your message to clarify this).

I accept your point, but a lot of generic questionnaires will have problems and probably the floor effects are not so bad compared to many (it's certainly worse for the SF-36 role physical, where lots of people with ME/CFS would score zero).

For anyone who doesn't know, to score 0, one would need to answer "yes, limited a lot" to all 10 of these questions:


The following items are about activities you might do during a typical day. Does your health now limit you in these activities? If so, how much? (check one on each line)


ACTIVITIES

Yes, Limited A Lot --- Yes, Limited A Little --- No, Not Limited At All


a. Vigorous activities, such as running, lifting heavy objects,
participating in strenuous sports deleted

b. Moderate activities, such as moving a table, pushing a
vacuum cleaner, bowling, or playing golf

c. Lifting or carrying groceries

d. Climbing several flights of stairs

e. Climbing one flight of stairs

f. Bending, kneeling, or stooping

g. Walking more than a mile

h. Walking several blocks

i. Walking one block

j. Bathing or dressing yourself

This questionnaire is used in a lot of ME/CFS research. For non-normalised scoring, one scores 5 for each "Yes, Limited A Little" and 10 for each "No, Not Limited At All".

Going from 35 to 0 is a pretty dramatic deterioration.
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
The Study said:
Previous work with the pragmatic rehabilition model has shown that it can be very effective in helping patients to get better (Powell et al., 2001), but this study suggests that if the model is not believed by patients, it is less effective (Wearden et al., 2010).
They didn't really show that the current study showed this. They just quoted various patients, but didn't show any correlation with outcome or really talk about this i.e. didn't say: here's a patient who did well and here is what they said, etc.
So, the original, small study (Powell, 2001) showed spectacular improvements while the larger and more rigorous study - set up specifically to validate this approach - showed no sustained effect. The conventional interpretation of this situation would be that the bigger and better validating study trumps the initial one, and the treatment doesn't work.

As Dolphin says, they also provided no evidence that patient beliefs were any different in the original trial.

Thanks for posting this and the other extracts, Dolphin, really valuable to get some direct patient views.
 

Little Bluestem

All Good Things Must Come to an End
Messages
4,930
Given that the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) initiative (Department of Health, 2008) is being proposed as a model for dealing with patients with MUS, these findings are relevant to the referral pathways and treatment models offered.
Shouldn’t that be the Improving Access to Testing and Diagnosis Initiative? I would think the first thing you would want to do with medically unexplained symptoms is explain them.
 
Messages
43
This qualitative study aimed to establish the factors which are important for patients to engage in this novel intervention for CFS/ME within a trial....

the findings to make recommendations for the referral process to such a service, were it to be commissioned.


my word, PACE and CBT get millions, FINE gets millions and now PR -- the gravy train continues on the back on sick ME sufferers.

"You MUST accept your dysfunctional illness beliefs, no you must, you must you must.....dont you want to get better.......OK I Accept.............there's a good boy"!
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
New David Tuller article today:
"Trial By Error, Continued: Why has the PACE Study’s “Sister Trial” been “Disappeared” and Forgotten?"

http://www.virology.ws/2015/11/09/t...-sister-trial-been-disappeared-and-forgotten/

Phoenix Rising thread on it:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/trial-by-error-continued-why-has-the-pace-study’s-“sister-trial”-been-“disappeared”-and-forgotten.41104/



@Dolphin thank you very much for adding in these links in all the appropriate places! :)