1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ and parents’ perceptions of recovery - Harland, Crawley et al 2019.

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by rogerblack, Dec 7, 2019.

  1. rogerblack

    rogerblack Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    43
    https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000525.full Full text is open.
    I find it depressing that 'return to pre-morbid condition' is not strongly endorsed. This is pretty damn clear. Yes, there are problems, and athletes returning to 'normal' person activity might not be quite recovered, but for a population average, SF36 or whatever metric needs to be used. For a large trial, there are no problems, as outliers up and outliers down should cancel mostly.

    It is also a real shame that there is no longitudinal followup.
    Sure, this trial obviously couldn't have followup as the interviews were done recently.
    For example
    Chronic fatigue syndrome in children aged 11 years old and younger.was collecting data around 2005, and the median age would now be 29 or so. Followup from PACE would average 50yo.

    I looked around to see if this was posted, and could find the similar in concept but different paper also by Crawley et al.
    Developing and pretesting a new patient reported outcome measure for paediatric cfs me cognitive interviews with children.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    Sean, John Mac, Snow Leopard and 10 others like this.
  2. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    UK
    How on earth can they say this:

    Conclusion
    Some parents and children "struggle to define what would constitute complete recovery." However, signs of recovery were more easily identifiable. Definitions of recovery went far beyond symptom reduction and were focused towards rebuilding lives.


    I don't know anyone with ME or other illnesses who would define complete recovery as anything other than a return to full (or pre-illness) health.

    Yes, anything that improves level of activity/reduction in pain etc would help, but it's not recovery except in the view of the Psychs!
     
  3. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    UK
    Looks like another waste of ?PhD funding.

    There is also another paper under review...
     
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    Hmmm... reference 12 is to the short Matthees piece pointing out the spin and misrepresentation seen in PACE's recover claims. The 'difficulty' there seemed to be that researchers were spinning their results. The other problems mentioned can be quite easily mitigated.

    A shame that they didn't ask the participants about Crawley's claims that PACE showed a recovery rate of 30-40% for CBT and GET - I suspect the average child would be able to see through that BS.

    Imagine being a PhD student looking at how to define recovery in CFS, with Crawley as your supervisor. Doomed.
     
    feeb, Sly Saint, ladycatlover and 9 others like this.
  5. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Esther Crawley is an author, sometimes lead, on several papers and researcher on several trials that boasted of people "recovering" from what she calls CFS. This is completely absurd, this single paragraph should disqualify her entire career. For the PACE trial, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet who somehow participated in promoting this trial, boasted of "strict criterion for recovery", which Crawley, as PACE author, has endorsed fully.

    Researchers who don't know the first thing about the illness they claim to be "top researchers" in need to go out in the woods and live out their lives in quiet reflection over being this incompetent. Patients know. Patients have been saying it for decades. It is not complicated, or complex, or vague. It is return to pre-morbid functioning. The premise being "there is no disease" means there should be no limitations and every physiological test should be in line with the rest of healthy adults or children.

    Perception is irrelevant. All those things are measurable, yet that never happens in BPS research. Always thoughts and feeling and biased questionnaires of little to no relevance to the illness. Doing step 1 after having spent years at the very last step, promoting flawed treatments as leading to full recovery, is not commendable, it is absurdly incompetent.

    And fig off with your "payback". PEM is hard to define but it is literally the hallmark symptom and pretending it is something else is just yet another layer of absurd incompetence. The name sucks and is misleading but we're stuck with it and payback isn't any better so stop it with adding confusion.
    This is ridiculous to the point of being idiotic and shows Crawley has no clue about anything related to this disease. The symptoms are the only obstacle and they are responsible for having anything to rebuild at all. For all practical matters it is this research, by Crawley and her colleagues, that destroyed those lives, by impairing progress and spreading misinformation, preventing the creation of competent services and building genuine research expertise, all leading to immense stigma and even ostracization, sometimes to death.
    This is the only competent part of this study and it is exactly what the ME community has explained for decades and has been rejected by people like Crawley and her colleagues who rejected every bit of substance from patient testimony. Just get out of the way and we will get this done, Crawley is beyond superfluous to the process, she is an obstacle and has always been.

    Only problem is the only competent part of this study is immediately contradicted in the same paragraph by suggesting the most possibly incompetent method of having the researchers defining the questions they want to answer, which is how the BPS approach has managed to incompetently fail millions with devastating consequences:
    Recording answers to incompetent questions is not how any of this should work. Those definitions right here are a great example of how the focus of this research has always been to entice desired answers to their own questions, rather than figuring out solutions to the problem.

    It's Crawley's choice to waste her career on garbage but this choice should not continue to impair the progress of science. Just go away and leave this to people who know what they're going and we'll fix the disaster you created.
     
    Philipp, Sean, Lidia and 3 others like this.
  6. DokaGirl

    DokaGirl Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,664
    As @rvallee says, the BPS model assumes no disease re ME ("cfs"). Why then are they unsure how to define recovery? It should be a complete return to pre-morbid health.

    However, the fly in the ointment as far as the BPS model is concerned are the patient's
    beliefs; "do they really want to get better." This could be one reason why they
    equivocate. I would answer, of course, we want to get better! You try living with this disease and see how you like it!
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    Sean, rvallee, MEMarge and 1 other person like this.
  7. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,916
    this
     
    Sean, rvallee, DokaGirl and 1 other person like this.
  8. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,393
    I'm only just skimming this, but thought I'd say that Crawley isn't an author on the PACE trial and clarify that it was a Lancet commentary from Knoop and Bleijenberg that made the BS "strict criterion for recovery" claim. Under Horton the Lancet has failed to correct it, but the claim wasn't made in a Horton c editorial: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21334060

    I took that to mean 'beyond symptom reduction', as in a mere improvement in symptoms is not sufficient to be classed as 'recovered'. This is so obvious that it can be difficult to believe this is what is being said, but there have been attempts to present a mere reduction in symptoms, while symptoms are still on-going, as indicating 'recovery'.
     
  9. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,262
    We seem to be going through a historical revisionist period in UK.

    Having redefined poverty many times to provide compliant/ improving spin on figures it should not come as any surprise that recovery is seen as similarly flexible.

    How on earth would so many psychological treatments work if recovery meant actual full recovery, and not some "degree" of recovery.

    Once the qualifying criteria is redefined as an " almost" , it can be revisited .
     
    chrisb, obeat, Andy and 5 others like this.
  10. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,262
    Given that Sonya Chowdery has , I believe, commented that recovery means full recovery it would be good if @Action for M.E. would comment on this.
    A tweet/ facebook page comment could be effective.
     
    JoanneS, Sly Saint, DokaGirl and 5 others like this.
  11. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    while they are trying to work out what 'recovery' is, maybe they should also investigate what constitutes 'harm'(?)
     

Share This Page