1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 23rd November 2020 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Guest, NICE have published their draft guideline for ME/CFS, click here to read about it.
    Dismiss Notice

Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions to Improve Quality of Life in People With Long-Term Conditions: Rapid Systematic Review of RCTs - 2018

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Sly Saint, Jul 6, 2020.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    44,440
    Location:
    UK
    Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions to Improve Quality of Life in People With Long-Term Conditions: Rapid Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

    Niall Anderson 1 2 , Gozde Ozakinci 3

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29587884/

    eta: posted this study as is basis of article in next post.
     
  2. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    44,440
    Location:
    UK
    Psychological interventions for patients with chronic illness

    https://medicalnewsbulletin.com/psychological-interventions-patients-chronic-illness/
     
    Sean, Woolie, Invisible Woman and 3 others like this.
  3. Gaspard

    Gaspard Established Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    67
    Out of 2223 citations, only 6 studies were used. 1727 were excluded because a full text was not available!? Plenty of authors will send a PDF of their article, when you send a friendly email, especially when you're a fellow academic.

    When you manage to assess only 0.27% of the studies in your selected field, it's time to revaluate what you're trying to accomplish.
     
    EzzieD, Sean, Woolie and 13 others like this.
  4. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    10,439
    In general all studies of this nature that include long term outcomes are fooling themselves as to what constitutes 'long term' . It may well be seen as long term for these type of studies but it is most definitely not long term with regard to a person's life with chronic illness. Long term effectiveness in real life must be seen as ongoing effectiveness just as you would expect for a drug therapy.

    Also, I cannot see in the paper or any others I've read something else important to the people being studied. What precisely are they meaning when they refer to improvement of Quality of Life. It needs to be concrete, specific and applicable to everyday life not just a better score on a questionnaire.

    These studies are always designed for the most minimal engagement with participants and to benefit the researcher by reassuring them that their preconceived notions of chronic illness and their preferred treatment are valid.

    I fail to understand how people who do this research can continue to believe in what they write / find as being of value to the people for whom it's meant to be useful. Would possibly transient and minimal changes on a questionanire score be enough for them in the circumstances?

    After seeing this type of stuff over many years now, IMO there is no benefit in even discussing the quality of reviews or original research of this type. Creating questions that have been developed by people without any experience of illness based on their pulling beliefs out of preconceived biases to start with is meaningless as valuable intelligence into real world concrete changes to quality of life.*

    I'm inclined to think that they might actually benefit from some more open-minded thinking (not bringing preformed constructs to bias the research discovery). There is actually some research done as anthropology that might be useful toward teaching psychologists how to let go of their allegiance to their preconceived notions of what they view as "useful / helpful" to the lives of people with chronic illness.

    NB: I haven't read all of the text (scanned mostly) to the following link but it's an example of a different approach:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390365/

    *I don't deny the possibility that for some there may be minor and/or transient value but chronically ill people deserve better than this. And they continue for decades with this stuff constantly 'refining' it as if doing that will yield something more substantial. It will only yield better results on paper IMO, not anything real.

    Also, I'm not suggesting that anthropological research is what is needed for ME research. Just that it might be helpful to psychology researchers bent on believing everything they find on a questionnaire.
     
    MEMarge, Sean, Woolie and 6 others like this.

Share This Page