Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Oct 21, 2018.
Open access at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205278
Rather like the PACE claims to be cost effective, this only has any meaning if the treatments actually work.
Certainly [as] with ME it is unlikely that any MUS approach could provide an effective treatment as it is just plain inappropriate. The treatment may drive patients away from the medical service treating them so inappropriately, therefore appearantly in the short term saving that service money, but it will not overall save anything in relation to the overall cost to society, indeed we are all aware of examples such inappropriate care worsening patients' condition and significantly increasing the overall burden of the condition.
[I should really read the article itself, but I just can't face it. However I am fairly confident that the studies included in this review, again like PACE only looked at short term implications of the intervention and did not address longer term issues like how many people had return to work or were still on benefits after one or two years.]
Response Twisk on Wortman review:
CBT / GET is not effective for CVS, let alone ME
(bit confused about this write up; Prince trial from 2001, is this a different trial from this one?
Does anyone else find it ironic that in a paper on cost-effectiveness (which presumably cost money to research) the only conclusion they could draw is that one therapist to many patients is cheaper than one to one?
The logical extrapolation from the conclusion that group therapy is more cost effective is the bigger the group the better.
Look at it the other way, the smaller dose of therapist each patient gets the better. Homeopathic dose of therapist anyone?
Just have everyone get together in a group and save the therapist wages
Or we could lose the therapist altogether and form self help groups... Oh wait a minute that just makes people worse.
I demand research into the ideal therapist to patient ratio and I demand it now, I tell you, now!!!
Nice comment @Michiel Tack
Are you able to edit it? I'd assume not but just in case, you missed a "t" I think here, "after the cost-effectiveness study and did no show significant differences between CBT and the natural course of the illness."
No, unfortunately, I can no change it. But thanks for spotting it anyway. You seem to have a good eye for spelling mistakes.
Separate names with a comma.