• 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.

Psychosocial factors involved in memory and cognitive failures in people with ME/CFS

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
Psychosocial factors involved in memory and cognitive failures in people with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Received: 28 June 2013
Accepted: 25 October 2013
Published: 25 February 2014
Elizabeth A Attree,1 Megan A Arroll,1 Christine P Dancey,1 Charlene Griffith,1 Amolak S Bansal1,2
1Chronic Illness Research Team, School of Psychology, University of East London, London, UK; 2Department of Immunology and the Sutton CFS Service, St Helier Hospital, Carshalton, UK

Background:

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is characterized by persistent emotional, mental, and physical fatigue accompanied by a range of neurological, autonomic, neuroendocrine, immune, and sleep problems.

Research has shown that psychosocial factors such as anxiety and depression as well as the symptoms of the illness, have a significant impact on the quality of life of people with ME/CFS. In addition, individuals may suffer from deficits in memory and concentration.

This study set out to explore the relationships between variables which have been found to contribute to cognitive performance, as measured by prospective and retrospective memory, and cognitive failures.

Methods:

Eighty-seven people with ME/CFS answered questionnaires measuring fatigue, depression, anxiety, social support, and general self-efficacy. These were used in a correlational design (multiple regression) to predict cognitive function (self-ratings on prospective and retrospective memory), and cognitive failures.

Results:

Our study found that fatigue, depression, and general self-efficacy were directly associated with cognitive failures and retrospective (but not prospective) memory.

Conclusion:


Although it was not possible in this study to determine the cause of the deficits, the literature in this area leads us to suggest that although the pathophysiological mechanisms of ME/CFS are unclear, abnormalities in the immune system, including proinflammatory cytokines, can lead to significant impairments in cognition.

We suggest that fatigue and depression may be a result of the neurobiological effects of ME/CFS and in addition, that the neurobiological effects of the illness may give rise to both fatigue and cognitive deficits independently.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Attree et al. said:
Our study found that fatigue, depression, and general self-efficacy were directly associated with cognitive failures and retrospective (but not prospective) memory.

In other words, two of the most common symptoms in ME/CFS (fatigue and cognitive impairment) are directly related, in terms of severity of symptoms.

In other words, as patients become more ill, various symptoms increase in severity, and vice versa.

Self-efficacy is also adversely affected as symptoms increase in severity. No surprise there.

As for depression, we know that most depression measures are inappropriate for ME/CFS patients.
In this study they used the CES-D Scale.
Questions on this scale include:
  • I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor.
  • I felt that everything I did was an effort.
  • My sleep was restless.
  • I felt lonely.
  • I could not get "going".

What a waste of time.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I have to say, that - and admittedly I have not yet read the full paper - I was disappointed.

Bansal is involved with IiME and the Rituximab 'Trial' (either the pre-trial study or the trial itself - I forget which), and helped with selection I think for their Microbiome project (the details of which are still hard to come by e.g. number of patients and controls and what exactly they will be doing).

But Bansal is also involved in a study for the ME Association*, and is scientific advisor to this research charity: http://www.mesolutions.org.uk/who-we-are/

I must say that I had hoped for more and was a bit shocked when I saw his name attached to this paper, but like I said, I am being pre-judgmental perhaps and not in full possession of the details.

ME Association Ramsay Research Fund
RRF: Dr Amolak Bansal et al, St Helier Hospital, Surrey:

This is a newly funded study that will have a degree of overlap with research we are already funding in Belgium and Glasgow. The research will aim to provide objective evidence of post-exertional malaise by looking at the effects of exercise on immune system function and cognitive function. The research protocol will also involve measurement of respiratory function during exercise – an aspect of research that the MEA is keen to pursue. CS reported that patients who meet Fukuda and Canadian criteria are now being recruited.

The research team consists of Dr Amolak Bansal (immunology), Dr Megan Arroll (cognitive function tests), Dr Dilip Shah (cardiology) and Mr Brian Ford (laboratory immunology) at St Helier Hospital in Surrey.

RRF Funding: £31,000

Perhaps someone more able than me (@Simon ?) can, like, Bob have a read through the paper at the top of this thread (http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=15953) and provide some more objective opinion. Many thanks.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
I don't know much about Bansal, but his name is the last name on the list of authors. This often means that the person has simply been consulted about a specific issue in relation to the study, or has contributed to a specific area of the study, such as recruitment. (However, I believe that anyone who puts their name to a study has to accept ownership of it.)

The positive thing about the study is that they suggest that depression is caused by the "neurobiological effects of ME/CFS", rather than depression being the cause of symptoms.

I don't find the conclusions offensive, but the study seems weak, and a waste of time.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I don't know much about Bansal, but his name is the last name on the list of authors. This often means that the person has simply been consulted about a specific issue in relation to the study, or has contributed to a specific area of the study, such as recruitment. (However, I believe that anyone who puts their name to a study has to accept ownership of it.)

The positive thing about the study is that they suggest that depression is caused by the "neurobiological effects of ME/CFS", rather than depression being the cause of symptoms.

I don't find the conclusions offensive, but the study seems weak, and a waste of time.

Agree completely. I am not sure what to expect from future work. Are we now heading for some amalgamation of ME/Depression etc. as all being caused by similar 'neurobiological' effects? And what the heck are 'neurobiological'? Is that a more acceptable term now, like 'biomedical'? :D
 
Messages
15,786
And what the heck are 'neurobiological'? Is that a more acceptable term now, like 'biomedical'? :D
It suggests a definite physiological or anatomical cause of neurological symptoms. This terminology is probably being used to clearly separate it from the "neuropsychological" nonsense which seems to be something of a fad among certain researchers who are fond of twisting meanings in the name of opposing dualism while engaging in actual dualism.

Once upon a time, simply saying "neurological" would have been sufficient to indicate a biological etiology, but the warping of the definitions of plain terminology has made that impractical.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
It suggests a definite physiological or anatomical cause of neurological symptoms. This terminology is probably being used to clearly separate it from the "neuropsychological" nonsense which seems to be something of a fad among certain researchers who are fond of twisting meanings in the name of opposing dualism while engaging in actual dualism.

Once upon a time, simply saying "neurological" would have been sufficient to indicate a biological etiology, but the warping of the definitions of plain terminology has made that impractical.

Yeah but it's all bollocks isn't it Val? :D

I mean. Everything is a biological process of some description when you get down to it. It is the notion that we are to blame that is really behind people's animosity - that our 'behaviour' is responsible for our disability.

As patients we want to have it proved that we aren't the cause of this situation, we want a test to say 'You are not to blame. It is not something you have invented. Or a figment of your imagination. Or something you could have simply put right if you thought in a different way or pushed on through with a bit of exercise.'

But all these terms really make be laugh - and it's all down to the names of the disciplines who are involved and how they categorise them. Doesn't matter if depression has a biological cause - which it does - you will still be seen by a therapist who will try to get you to better manage the condition by adapting your behaviour to it - along with some drugs probably... is it any different really for someone with epilepsy? I don't think so.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I don't know much about Bansal, but his name is the last name on the list of authors. This often means that the person has simply been consulted about a specific issue in relation to the study, or has contributed to a specific area of the study, such as recruitment. (However, I believe that anyone who puts their name to a study has to accept ownership of it.)

Megan Arroll is the psychologist with an interest in the cognitive side of CFS/ME. But I agree here as well, Bansal has his name on it, and it remains bothersome to me.
 
Messages
15,786
But all these terms really make be laugh - and it's all down to the names of the disciplines who are involved and how they categorise them. Doesn't matter if depression has a biological cause - which it does - you will still be seen by a therapist who will try to get you to better manage the condition by adapting your behaviour to it - along with some drugs probably... is it any different really for someone with epilepsy? I don't think so.
I'd disagree - the cause should be hugely important in deciding the treatment. If I'm depressed due to psychosocial factors, then it makes the most sense to remedy those factors. If I'm depressed due to neurotransmitter imbalance, then taking a drug to address that imbalance is likely to be more effective than talking about my feelings. If I'm depressed because my psychologist is an asshole, then the best solution is probably to avoid that psychologist. If I'm depressed because life is hard and I don't know how to cope with it, then it makes sense to get a therapy involving practical advice.

I'm not going to take a pill because my psychologist is an asshole, or because some doctors treat me like crap. All the advice in the world won't solve a severe neurotransmitter problem or brain damage. Hence the cause of the depression is of great importance, in my opinion. Unfortunately there often isn't a perfect pill or psychological treatment or piece of advice to solve a case of depression, but at least it gives guidance on where to start and what sort of improvements to expect.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I'd disagree - the cause should be hugely important in deciding the treatment. If I'm depressed due to psychosocial factors, then it makes the most sense to remedy those factors. If I'm depressed due to neurotransmitter imbalance, then taking a drug to address that imbalance is likely to be more effective than talking about my feelings. If I'm depressed because my psychologist is an asshole, then the best solution is probably to avoid that psychologist. If I'm depressed because life is hard and I don't know how to cope with it, then it makes sense to get a therapy involving practical advice.

I'm not going to take a pill because my psychologist is an asshole, or because some doctors treat me like crap. All the advice in the world won't solve a severe neurotransmitter problem or brain damage. Hence the cause of the depression is of great importance, in my opinion. Unfortunately there often isn't a perfect pill or psychological treatment or piece of advice to solve a case of depression, but at least it gives guidance on where to start and what sort of improvements to expect.

I do like the cut of your jib, Val :D

However.... we are all human. We go to the doctor and sit in front of him, and he (or we) try and determine from our expressed symptoms (or visible symptoms and - let's face it - behaviours), what might be the problem. This involves much interpretation on the part of patient and doctor, and on anyone else's specialty part if we are referred.

So. How to determine if someone who is - for arguments sake - presenting with symptoms of depression, has a 'psychosocial' cause or a biological one? Indeed, I would argue that even a psychosocial 'cause' involves a stressor that antagonises a biological response by way of a defense mechanism perhaps.

For some (many?) antidepressants can help relieve some of the symptoms - but unless the cause is identified and treated successfully the problem will remain - as will any susceptibility. Antidepressants (stupid name) are also prescribed to relieve similar symptoms for conditions or symptoms unrelated to depression - biological causes as well as - if you chose to delineate - psychosocial ones.

Who is to say if there is not something 'deeper' behind any presenting symptoms? Only by a 'suck it and see' approach can even modern medicine hope to get to the root cause. Of course for many patients this isn't enough. They would rather face a battery of tests, and even if those tests are interpreted as meaning very little, they will seek even more. Sometimes - hopefully - a test or several will determine a cause. And that cause can be treated. And the symptoms will resolve.

But for many people with e.g. depression, there does seem to be this susceptibility. Does that come from a genetic component, an inability to cope as well as others, or something else? Is it 'really depression'? Or is depression really something else?

Replace depression with any condition you choose, including ME. It is I think the interpretation that causes the problems and seeing many doctors or specialists doesn't always lead to a determining cause or successful treatment and a resolution of the symptoms, disability and return to full function.

You know, I watched Lipkin's Oxford presentation recently, and he was talking about something I have mentioned in jest with Bob before now. This Star Trek gadget that they use on the show to scan and diagnose a patient. Lipkin was saying how something similar will likely be seen in hospitals enabling quicker diagnosis from the bedside. But the gadget still requires programming by humans and using human knowledge and... interpretation.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
For some (many?) antidepressants can help relieve some of the symptoms - but unless the cause is identified and treated successfully the problem will remain - as will any susceptibility. Antidepressants (stupid name) are also prescribed to relieve similar symptoms for conditions or symptoms unrelated to depression - biological causes as well as - if you chose to delineate - psychosocial ones.

A little known fact (at least among the general population) is that antidepressants act on the immune system. As far as I'm aware, they all have this in common.
 

peggy-sue

Senior Member
Messages
2,623
Location
Scotland
My currently-being-treated with Citalopram depression is caused by having ME, the life I have lost because of it, being housebound and grubby, unable to do all the things I want to do and being treated with nothing but contempt and antidepressants by the medical profession.

Fix those "biopsychosocial" factors, and I won't be depressed any more!
 
Messages
15,786
So. How to determine if someone who is - for arguments sake - presenting with symptoms of depression, has a 'psychosocial' cause or a biological one?
For depression or pretty much anything else with an unclear cause, investigation of the cause would be the most obvious answer. If there's not a very obvious psychosocial trigger, or if there are additional neurological symptoms, etc, then it would make sense to assess neurotransmitter function, or check for brain damage (presumably this would have already been done after head trauma), etc.

Instead, the trend is to assume any neurological symptoms are psychological, and throw some antidepressants at it, with or without symptoms of a mood disorder. If that doesn't work, the next step is to try a different antidepressant, and another, and another. It's not even a matter of some doctors not looking for the supposedly rare "zebras" ... they're assuming that almost every problem is a very specific breed of horse that they happen to fancy, and missing out on obvious and common alternative diagnoses.
 

peggy-sue

Senior Member
Messages
2,623
Location
Scotland
On a slightly more serious note, one bout of depression I had was caused by being bullied by my line-manager at work. He had sacked me (wrongly) for my alcohol problems, just as I went into rehab.
When I was completely sober and well again, I was immediately reinstated on appeal. He didn't like that and so when he got the chance, he doubled my workload and then criticised the quality of my output. He set me up to fail. He would have little meetings with me in his office, but refused to let me have anybody in at the same time, to observe how he treated me.

My union guy told me that there was absolutely nothing in any legislation that said I should expect to be treated with any normal, common or garden humanity in the workplace.
If I couldn't cope with the work politics, that was my failing. :eek:

I eventually get depression when I am being bullied by somebody who has power over me. It has always been an external "social" source over which I have no control, which has precipitated it.
Before depression sets in, I go manic trying to get things right, it becomes obsessive, I talk to myself, my anxiety increases and increases, before the final wallop of full anhedonia hits.

Sometimes, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about the source of the depression.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I've just read the full paper.

I would have found this paper much more interesting if they had measured actual cognitive functioning. What they actually measured was self-reported impairments, which may not be the same thing:

Cognitive function

Prospective and retrospective memory questionnaire

Smith et al48 developed a scale in order to assess the prospective and retrospective memory of patients with dementia. It is a 16-item scale that asks participants how often each item happens to them; eg, “Do you decide to do something in a few minutes’ time and then forget to do it?” Answers are on a 5-point scale ranging from “never” to “very often.” The internal consistency is very good for this scale, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.89 for the total scale, 0.84 for prospective memory scale, and 0.80 for the retrospective memory scale.49 The ability of this measure to predict actual memory deficits varies between the two subscales, with the prospective memory scale illustrating better performance than the retrospective scale.50

Cognitive failures questionnaire

The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ)51 is a 25-item questionnaire which measures failures of perception, memory, and motor function. Participants are asked to rate how often they experience each type of error on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 4 (“very often”); eg, “do you find you confuse right and left when giving directions?” The total score for this questionnaire ranges from 0–100 with higher scores indicating more types of cognitive failures. The construct validity of this measure is good, illustrating significant positive correlations with the affective response, perception of time, and constraint subscales of the Boredom Proneness Scale and the attention and hyperactivity subscales of the Adult Behavior Checklist.52 In terms of the questionnaire’s association with actual mishaps (eg, an accident, an injury-caused hospitalization, a serious fall), CFQ scores differed significantly (in the expected direction) between participants defined as mishap-involved as compared to those defined as mishap-free.53

It doesn't seem that surprising that one might find relationships with self-efficacy, for example. If you're not confident in your ability to do things (low self-efficacy) one may report more cognitive failures. Similarly if one reports more cognitive failures, one might report less confidence in one's ability to do things. Basically, there seems to be a big risk that one isn't really measuring completely separate things: a lot of what one is measuring depends on what people tell you.

I'm does sceptical of claims like:
Management programs which focus on dealing with factors such as self-efficacy, depression, and symptom expectation may improve cognitive function and the quality of life of people with ME/CFS. It will be interesting to see if this is accompanied by improvements in memory.
What one might say with more confidence is that such programs might lead to patients reporting better cognitive functioning, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I found the paper reasonably sympathetic: it tended to tie in the sort of problems seen in ME/CFS with other "physical" conditions e.g. multiple sclerosis.

However, the last paragraph is sort of odd. Usually the last paragraph is a summary of what was said before but these points weren't really raised (that I recall).

Although our model shows that fatigue leads to cognitive failures, it may be that the illness itself (which may include changes in the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, neuroendocrine dysregulation, and other neurobiological effects) may give rise to both fatigue and cognitive deficits, independently; ie, that the correlation between fatigue and cognitive failures are both due to a third variable – the neurobiological effects of ME/CFS. Therefore, other areas of future work may want to focus on these effects and also the pathophysiological mechanism(s) of ME/CFS to discover how these relate to fatigue and cognitive performance; for instance, various studies have reported abnormalities in the immune system, including elevated proinflammatory cytokines, which could explain fatigue.60 The importance of elevated proinflammatory cytokines in the etiology of fatigue is also strongly suggested by work in patients with MS with and without fatigue.61 It is presently unclear whether the low level increase in inflammatory cytokines seen in ME/CFS62 and associated with an increase in highly sensitive C-reactive protein, a general marker for inflammation and infection,63 can cause significant impairment of cognition and memory in individuals with ME/CFS; this would be a worthwhile area of future study.

It has the feel of something stuck in later. One reason this happens is a point raised by a reviewer. Anyway, I think it's good that it's in it.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Finally, the response rate could have been improved if reminders had been sent to participants and we will endeavor to do this in future studies.
I don't know why they didn't do it in this case. Seemed odd. But they did get a good response rate at 63%:

Eighty-seven participants (85 women and two men) returned questionnaire packs by the 4-week deadline that was given. This represents a 63% response rate. No reminders were issued in this study.