1. Guest, for the 'News in Brief' week beginning 10th February 2020 - click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

How should we evaluate research on counselling and the treatment of depression? A case study on..., 2017, Barkham et al

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Andy, Jan 22, 2019.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    8,582
    Likes Received:
    62,287
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Open access at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/capr.12141

    Posting this as it has been highlighted in the comments of Spoonseeker's latest blog that the concept expressed in this review is to be used to 'lower the bar' that NICE uses to assess treatments by, and therefore "to use the IAPT MUS data set in the NICE Guidelines review as evidence for the effectiveness of CBT and GET for ME/CFS patients"
    Link to comments section of the Spoonseeker blog, quote is from the comment by Couch Turnip, https://spoonseeker.com/2019/01/21/coming-down-the-line/comment-page-1/#comments
    Our thread on the blog here, https://s4me.info/threads/spoonseeker-coming-down-the-line.7775/

    I've no idea if that argument is 'right' or not but thought it was worth adding to the general discussion.
     
  2. Peter Trewhitt

    Peter Trewhitt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    9,616
    Not with it to read everything properly, but a first thought is that this weakening of evidence considered as relevant is potentially both bad and good.

    Shifting away from insisting on rigorous experimental design may be a way of keeping bad research such as PACE in the mix, but it also may allow in such as patient surveys demonstrating the harm resulting from GET or PACE type CBT.
     
    DokaGirl, Amw66, andypants and 3 others like this.

Share This Page