Correction: The impact of CFS/ME on employment and productivity in the UK: a cross-sectional study based on the CFS/ME national outcomes database

Correction : BMC Health Services Research 11, 217 (2011)
Another Crawley correction from 2011

Original study
https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-11-217

• Simon M Collin,

• Esther Crawley,

• Margaret T May,

• Jonathan AC Sterne &

• William Hollingworth

• for UK CFS/ME National Outcomes Database

Following a report of a publications review jointly commissioned by the Health Research Authority and the University of Bristol, the authors would like to correct the following element of the ethics statement provided in the original article [1]:

The data used in this study were originally collected and collated in the National Outcomes Database for the purposes of evaluation of CFS/ME services. The collection of a subset of CFS/ME patient data as part of the national CFS/ME collaborative was confirmed to be service evaluation by the North Somerset & Bristol Research Ethics Committee under REC reference 07/Q2006/48, and in a letter dated 29 January 2007 the Chair of the Research Ethics Committee had previously confirmed (a) that it would not be necessary to apply for ethical permission to use the data being collected as part of service evaluation for the national CFS/ME collaborative and (b) that if in future these data were to be used as part of a research project, this would be agreeable.

https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-023-09484-7

@dave30th

 

Thanks for tracking!

 

They insist on calling this very debilitating disease by the light weight version, "CFS/ME".

 

It’s the easiest metric for evaluating whether any publication is worth the paper it was printed on.

 

Yes, it's a time and energy saver.

 

I think these statements are relevant to the current thread on developing PROMs on the basis it seems the ethics statements claim here if patients fill out a service evaluation it’s fair game to get used later in stuff like this ‘research’

if this is going to continue to be the case then such facts need to be ‘factored in’

I have an issue with that of course, particularly where you can imagine people like Crawley cherry-picking if there were objective measures that don’t show what they want so they just use the survey measures they fancy. No one’s data should be fair game for such usage when it has been given probably under social pressure and certainly for different purposes