This looks like an effort to disinform journalists in anticipation of PACE trial criticisms.
- What exactly is CBT and how does it work? Is it just talking?
- Where do we have robust evidence of CBT working really well?
- What about issues like placebos and double-blind RCTs – does it matter if we don’t have the same level of rigour as for drugs?
- Are there concerns about CBT being overused or misused? Can it cause harm? How do we ensure practitioners have sufficient training in its use?
- How cost-effective is CBT? Are we using it enough?
- Can we see a future where psychological therapies replace pharmacological ones for many mental illnesses?
One can easily predict what the message will be:
- The evidence for use of CBT in CFS is robust.
- Lack of blinding and emphasis on subjective outcomes in a clinical trial is no problem.
- CBT is appropriate for CFS, changing "false illness beliefs" is not misuse, and there's no evidence of harm.
- CBT is cost effective, and we are not using it enough (those poor patients).
This mirrors the PACE trial criticism. I doubt that they will actually tell journalists that there are people who disagree with these points and can back their opinion up with good arguments.
PS: CBT for psychosis is also under attack, so it's likely the briefing will reflect that.
