Psychological predictors of fatigue, work and social adjustment, and psychological distress in rheumatology outpatients: A short report. 2019 Chalder

Sly Saint

Sly Saint

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Matcham, F., Ali, S., Irving, K., & Chalder, T. (2019). Psychological predictors of fatigue, work and social adjustment, and psychological distress in rheumatology outpatients: A short report. European Journal of Health Psychology, 26(1), 25-29.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the longitudinal relationships between psychological variables and follow-up levels of fatigue, work and social adjustment, and psychological distress in people with rheumatic diseases. The study is a prospective observational study. Patients attending rheumatology outpatient appointments completed a questionnaire during their hospital visit and were mailed a follow-up questionnaire either at their next appointment or via postal questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression models examined the association between baseline cognitive behavioral responses, personality, social support and acceptance and follow-up levels of fatigue, work and social adjustment, and psychological distress, adjusting for age, gender, disease duration, and the length of time between baseline and follow-up. A total of 108 patients completed the follow-up questionnaires.

The biggest predictors of having high levels of fatigue at follow-up were increased baseline damage beliefs and behavioral avoidance. Behavioral avoidance at baseline also had a strong relationship with worsened work and social adjustment at follow-up. The biggest predictor of psychological distress at follow-up was a lack of fatigue acceptance at baseline. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserve
Click to expand...
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31300-004
 
I feel sorry for those patients having to fill out lots or irrelevant and meaningless questionnaires, and having their responses mangled to suit the theories of crackpot therapists. Leave those sick people alone! They need medical help and advice, not having their heads screwed up.
 
The biggest predictor of psychological distress at follow-up was a lack of fatigue acceptance at baseline
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, that. Totally a real thing. Gotta score really high on the "fatigue acceptance" testing machine which totally tests for real fatigue acceptance psychobullshittomarkers. Everyone knows fatigue is like vampires: if you don't invite it into your body, it can't enter. Or something like that. The official SI unit is a gullible.

It's remarkable that nearly every one of Chalder's research papers shows clear evidence that sick people are actually pretty good at self-reporting their severity of illness, even long-term. Weird choice to reach the opposite conclusion but she does have a habit of showing how Wessely's "predictor" of illness severity being strength of belief is a simple reversal of cause and effect, in other words: made-up BS.

So close to getting it, somehow always looking the wrong way. Is it the rain that causes clouds? Or the clouds that cause rain? Well, have you ever seen rain without clouds? Obviously not, but you have seen clouds without rain. Can't argue with that logic.
 
Those poor, weak people who just can’t cope with life....pesky, irritating little things. If only they could understand they need to be more like me........ I would never respond that way to being ill. In fact, I don’t think I could ever get an illness that wouldn’t go away. I’m too self-aware and my cognitive strategies are so brilliant, I would be better in no time.

Now where’s my halo?
 
Daisybell said:
Those poor, weak people who just can’t cope with life....pesky, irritating little things. If only they could understand they need to be more like me........ I would never respond that way to being ill. In fact, I don’t think I could ever get an illness that wouldn’t go away. I’m too self-aware and my cognitive strategies are so brilliant, I would be better in no time.

Now where’s my halo?
Click to expand...
This can all truly be summed as a fundamental attribution error. Describing normal reaction to abnormal circumstances as abnormal simply out of ignorance of the reality of the abnormal circumstances.

Maximum irony coming from people who definitely should be aware of and conscious of avoiding it. And yet here we are.
 
Last edited:
I think so much of this kind of "research" has a hidden agenda - to find ways to reduce health costs, and to hell with the real costs to patients of their ill health. An easy win is for 'science' to so supposedly show that patients' own attitudes are the problem, and so architects of their own misfortunes. If the cheapskate 'treatment' doesn't work, it's the patient's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom