And again, that money went to Crawley. Patients really deserve to know if there is a conflict of interest there.It's junk. Action for ME wasted scarce resources, demonstrating once again that it cannot be trusted to make decisions about research.
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, 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.
And again, that money went to Crawley. Patients really deserve to know if there is a conflict of interest there.It's junk. Action for ME wasted scarce resources, demonstrating once again that it cannot be trusted to make decisions about research.
I notice the interviews were done when patients were still in treatment. So highly biased by loyalty to kind therapists and hope that the treatment might work. I'd much rather they did them a year later. Then we might get some useful insights.
I shall not read the full paper. Can't face it.
Participants were recruited between July–September 2014. Patients who completed a course of treatment within this period were offered a Patient Information Sheet and ‘Consent to Contact’ Form by a clinician involved in their treatment. Interested patients were required to opt-in to the study by returning the Consent to Contact Form to the research team, after which the principal researcher contacted the patient by telephone to discuss the study in further detail. Participants were not eligible to participate in this study if they were: age < 18 years; too severely affected to be able to participate in interviews; unable to provide informed consent; unable to read and understand the Patient Information Sheet and Consent Forms; or not diagnosed with CFS/ME as a primary diagnosis.
This study is not useless
Fluff like this is always a warning bell."played a vital role in patients’ journeys towards an improved quality of life"
Correctly so. GET is just an application of the general exposure-desensitisation model sometimes used in psych therapy.If it's known that you will be 'encouraged' to do something like Gradual Exposure Therapy, (my new and more accurate description of GET)
A proper look needs to be taken at the paper, from the perspective of FOIA data that could be obtained to get more details of dropouts/... I diddn't get around to this yesterday, due to tidying the kitchen.
some cool people I met, noone was fooled
Even if it was the patient the content of the conversation can influence the patient. For example, saying it could be quite a burden do you think you are really up to it.was it the pt or the PI who determined at that point who would then take part, to get to the (only) 16 pts from 3 centres over 3 months who eventually took part.
That's where I stopped reading (must be my lack of perseverance). I can be quite grumpy so it wouldn't be any use for me. What have they got for grumpy people by the way? Does the NHS offer treatment for any other illnesses that only works for optimists? Sounds like blatent discrimination to me, curmudgeons have a right to get better too.A wide range of factors was evident in forming participants’ experiences, including personal characteristics such as perseverance and optimism
I very much doubt they collected data on drop-outs so an FOIA request is unlikely to yield any results.
Grumpy rhymes are rhymes too!Thank you @TiredSam for speaking up for us grumpies. Couldn't have put it better myself. How dare they judge us like this. They have no idea what they are talking about. Think I should change my name to GrumpyTrish.
(Excellent.http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/intuition/Slough.html I am reminded of,
Exactly! & the same for children's services which would invalidate the need for specialist centres. Specialist centres are seen as helpful because of the poor treatment (possibly an understatement) that many families have received from schools & GPs. I think specialist services could be useful if they acted as some kind of training hub where theyWe did not seek to explore patients’ experiences of specific treatments or components of treatment programmes such as CBT and GET.
It seemed mostly focussed on patients feeling validated and emotional support to accept being chronically ill rather than improving functionality.
The other principal limitation of our study is that we recruited patients who had reached the end of treatment. This means that the positive experiences that we have reported could be considered to represent ‘success stories’. We do not have figures for drop-out rates, which might reflect dissatisfaction with services and/or competing health issues. We would propose interviews with patients who do not complete treatment as an important area for future qualitative research. Our findings are susceptible to selection bias if patients were motivated to participate by a sense of gratitude and an altruistic desire to ‘give back’ to the clinic after a positive experience.
Good point!
The study seems to pick out what patients value about specialist services. I.e. understanding of the condition, validation, empathy. It makes the point at the end that these are all things that should be reasonably expected in primary care but are lacking due to current attitudes.
I only read the results and discussion. I think they were realistic about the limitations of the study. Best evidence I have seen yet for redirecting the resources for these clinics into GP training. If GPs could validate and be empathic and a practice nurse give information and advice like they do other chronic conditions that would serve the same purpose as far as I am concerned.
Grumpy rhymes are rhymes too!
http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/intuition/Slough.html I am reminded of, and have just discovered http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/john_betjeman/poems/785 - which I quite like.
And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:
If you do not survey everyone or a large random sampling then you risk selection bias.Ask everyone who started the treatment,