Psychological well-being and illness perceptions in patients with hypopituitarism, Knoop et al, 2021

John Mac

John Mac

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
About hypopituitarism but mentions chronic fatigue syndrome.
Knoop is among the researchers.

Abstract
Objective
The primary aim of the current study was to objectify a spectrum of persisting subjective psychological complaints in patients with hypopituitarism, at least six months after normalizing of the hormonal disturbances. Also, gender differences on these outcomes were investigated. The secondary aim was to identify illness perceptions and causal attributions within this patient group.

Methods
A total of 42 adult participants (60% females) with treated hypopituitarism once filled out a number of psychological questionnaires. The Profile of Mood States (POMS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessed mood and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) assessed well-being. Illness perceptions were identified using the Illness Perceptions Questionnaire-Brief Dutch Language Version (IPQ-B DLV) and causal attributions by using the Causal Attribution List (CAL). Patient outcomes were compared to reference values of healthy norm groups.

Results
Participants scored significantly worse on the POMS depression, anger, fatigue and tension subscales, the SCL-90 psychoneuroticism, depression, inadequacy of thinking and acting and sleeping problems subscales and all subscales of the WSAS when compared to reference data. Women also scored worse on depression (HADS) and somatic symptoms (SCL-90). Compared to other illnesses, patients with hypopituitarism have more negative and realistic illness perceptions on consequences, timeline, identity and emotions. Participants attributed their complaints more to physical causes than psychological causes.

Conclusion
Despite normalization of hormonal disturbances, patients with hypopituitarism in general can still experience problems during daily living, such as negative mood states and a decreased psychological well-being.
Click to expand...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11102-021-01131-w
 
I can't help wondering whether medical care and research would be improved if questionnaires were banned. Doctors might have to actually listen to patient and do proper investigations and work hard to find objective ways of measuring outcomes.
 
Trish said:
I can't help wondering whether medical care and research would be improved if questionnaires were banned. Doctors might have to actually listen to patient and do proper investigations and work hard to find objective ways of measuring outcomes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should be allowed but only on condition that the psychiatrists or therapists provide responses to similar questionnaires to enable the patient to assess whether the "caregiver" is of suitable disposition, character, experience and qualification to reasonably provide for the patient's needs.
 
To "objectify":
verb
  1. degrade to the status of a mere object.
    "a deeply sexist attitude that objectifies women"

  2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.
    "good poetry objectifies feeling"
Definitely the first one. Not a single objective question in any of those biased generic questionnaires.

A smart person would conclude that whatever is used to rate "normalization" is obviously insufficient. A not-smart person would make bizarre assumptions and argue that they are adding objectivity by having people answer vague biased questionnaires of no relevance to the circumstances.

And yeah, "inadequacy of thinking" is so absurd. Not the fact that someone that Knoop would argue this but that it is a valid concept with a "standard" questionnaire and passes peer review as not being absurdly judgmental and of no scientific value.

They never wonder why their patients always attribute to physical causes. Even when there is a known physiological explanation they still refuse that it must be a valid, showing clear evidence of pervasive refusal to accept reality and false attribution syndrome, assigning blame onto imaginary causes instead of the obvious.
 
Compared to other illnesses, patients with hypopituitarism have more negative and realistic illness perceptions on consequences, timeline, identity and emotions. Participants attributed their complaints more to physical causes than psychological causes.
Click to expand...

What they are implying here is that these people are somatisers.
 
One wonders if this type of cheap, quick research is being done to empire build as a way of providing 'evidence' that patients might benefit from our old friend CBT. That'd be my cynical thinking in that respect. Mc research leading to superficial Mc therapy 'solution'.

As for these types of questionnaires they ideally should only be used as a guide to facilitate assessments and perhaps periodic monitoring of interventions (medical and psychological) where appropriate and in partnership with patients. And ideally with objective measures too. They are guides. That is their limit. Facilitate a discussion often. And they should be discussed with patients as misunderstandings happen all the time. Errors are frequent.

Dishing out a load of questionnaires and creating a paper claiming it tells the world something meaningful is a nonsense. Complete absence of the patients voice. Researchers take all the power to interpret the 'findings' whether this has any resemblance to patients difficulties or suffering. But it was probably a cheap MSc or PhD

Weirdly if my cynical response about this is their 'game', then they fail (due to the obvious above) but also because it pretty clearly says to me: until we know what causes (insert medical condition), what the disease mechanisms are, when the first thing we find we correct in an effort to help/recover, is very far from the full picture. Medics are making a good effort with the tools they currently have. But there is much work to do. That's pretty much it. It's clear there remain ongoing difficulties for the patients and that needs figuring out. Pretty clear that delving into patients psychology will not be the answer
 
unicorn7 said:
Wow, I just... can not..:banghead:

well, at least we are not only ones who are improperly psychologised anymore:laugh:
Click to expand...
I don't wish it upon other disease groups, but the massive over reach currently underway from the BPS empire builders is likely to (eventually) work in our favour.

You can get away with gaslighting and marginalising and pissing off a relatively small number of patients with a specific disease. But much harder to do so for large numbers across many disease categories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom