This is why I think we need longitudinal studies of activity patterns in ME.
Questionnaires are not going to be reliable without background evidence. And however well intentioned I am pretty sure that the unstoppable temptation of physios to think they know how to interpret physiology when they don't will take hold, just in a slightly different form.
Agreed I think we have to get our head around the fact that if someone using good methodology (Workwell, physiosforME have shown much better indicators of this) isn't setting standards of how these things should be measured, and how such results should be interpreted (ie not lumping and dumping lowest common denominator) the gaps will be filled with guesses/assumptions/ideology that fit others' agendas.
Even Workwell might be at risk of repeating the same mistakes of too short a measuring span and separating the spectrum in understanding the condition and moving too fast into the 'offer help' instead of 'provide data' phase. Those two aspects are so key - if you don't design tests that can ethically still measure someone who's become v severe in 3yrs time then that 'quadrant' can't appear on your data, magically removing it as a possibility to be real (big flaw in the model). And to not even approach 'severe' (the next closest) as the next methodological task is a problem because they will miss the 'signals' or indicators that might flag where their interventions are causing bodily changes in milds to head that way slowly.
When I saw the Workwell stuff it made sense why my treadmill attempts had gotten shorter/worse rather than better (some gyms have a lot of data built into their little keys - and that
could be one source BTW) when I tried on the suggestion of GP years before. What I now don't know is whether the fact that the (I was moderate then) v small weights/non-aerobic bit
did show progression (til I relapsed) whether that was 'a different system that was fine' or just took longer to conk out in reaction to it.
The sad thing is that is you took the medication and treatment away from those with many diseases then what PwME describe is the more logical and obvious scenario - but this BPS thing of 'just a bit more now does you good later' has taken such hold, and works so well for other people in so many situations. Along with this utter terror of the idea of deconditioning or 'use it or lose it' pushed through certain age groups. Well, we've got default primed to cart before horse. Which would become a bit silly when you've got graphed data even 12yr old athletes would do and understand for their training sessions showing the opposite. But it takes a lot to overturn it.
The horrible irony is that whilst the scientists have the major stumbling block of the ethics of exercise programme + 2-day CPET to absolute proof to work around, BPS don't. As long as you cite a theory that says you don't believe these things happen currently you can get ethics sign-off for bunging POTS people on a tilt table for no good reason, put them through increased exercise either through GET or CBT and never have to assess the objective state of their health.
Maybe what we really need is for Workwell/physioforME type thing to recruit those who already signed up to a Crawley or Chalder special into a study that is as simple as doing a 2-day CPET and muscle strength, cognitive tests (so one system can't cannibalise) before and after + 6mnths, 1yr, 2yrs, 3yrs (and a govt sign-off for such an investigation to take place on the basis of how much £££ in funding that would save, but also it being a basic proper check into their safety based on the pretty well-put claims of harm for these things).
But we still have the stumbling block of ... if they are still medically fit to do so. Which is where my mind rambles to the HeartRate in the home pilot
@PhysiosforME did a while back - and assuming that the iller someone is the worse such data would be in response to activities they couldn't avoid anyway (work, daily commute etc). They could perhaps also work on how to adapt the muscle strength test etc to still be safe if severity dips hugely over this longitudinal span of 3yrs.
Combined with a really well thought-through phone app (privacy vs ease of use/capture of all elements) this one seems the hardest to set up but the most applicable across severities (which is also the key to provide info for medics to inform if someone is 'switching stages' maybe).