Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Aug 18, 2018.
Paywalled at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359104518794764?journalCode=ccpa
For goodness sake, there were only 6 patients in the study. How hard would it be to say in the abstract 'three out of six showed improvements in physical functioning' and 'one (or two?) out of six showed substantial improvements in fatigue' instead of this wiffle-waffle?
If the adolescents were severely affected as reported in the abstract and only several patients showed improvements in physical functioning, how the hell did the three who didn't show improvements in physical functioning get back to school? Are they wheeled into the classrooms and put in corners with blankets over their heads?
I assume the return to school was part-time for most, although that is not stated.
No, some adolescents showed improved physical functioning (and apparently social adjustment whatever that means) after a home-based rehabilitative approach [edit: and twelve months]. But there were no controls!! Correlation (in as much as you can have a correlation with six participants) is not causation.
Crap in=crap out
So a year after some home visits from a cbt therapist some of the patients had improved on some criteria. No control group. Would they have improved a bit over that time anyway? Who knows.
This is not science.
Afterwards the patients flew off into the sunset on the backs of flying pigs.
It seems journals will publish anything these days......
Interesting to see the full paper if someone has access?
So no GET? Or did the CBT involve some covert GET?
That phrase 'family focused rehabilitative approach rings alarm bells to me. As soon as you hear the word rehabilitation in ME treatments it seems to mean increasing activity. The aim or rehab being to get back to full function.
@Hutan shows how good their grasp on stats is if they can get several out of 6...........
she'll be saying they all recovered when she meant improved next
Does suggest the symptom severity may not have directly correlated with ME-severity.
From the study... „It is important to note that change was not linear. Individual change over time was varied, with some individuals’ fatigue levels increasing. Improvements in physical functioning and social adjustment did not necessarily match changes in fatigue. This supports previous research where adolescents who report themselves as recovered still continue to experience fatigue symptoms (Sankey, Hill, Brown, Quinn, & Fletcher, 2006). One study found that in comparison to healthy controls, adolescents with CFS had unrealistic expectations of normative levels of fatigue (Garralda & Rangel, 2001). Therefore it is possible that participants were experiencing normal levels of fatigue compared to the general population, but that their expectations of fatigue were still lower than this. The aim of the current treatment was to help adolescents to deal with normal levels of fatigue that is experienced on an everyday basis. The findings suggests that in some participants, the ability to manage and tolerate fatigue improved.“ ....
So the fatigue in CFS is likely the normal everybody’s fatigue, just perceived wrong by adolescents with ME.
6 people ?
I have to concur with @arewenearlythereyet ...
A double dose of tripe seems entirely appropriate, especially as I can't stand the stuff.
Ditto and ditto .
Thereby possible/probable they were not experiencing normal levels of fatigue at all. Which makes the treatment aim irresponsible at best.
Yeah, @arewenearlythereyet's tripe!
and four authors!!!!
oh my indeed...........I thought they were chammy leathers
You got the "shammy" bit right.
boom boom as Basil Brush would say
Separate names with a comma.