Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Jan 26, 2019.
Open access at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-018-0945-9
Adherence to what? GET and CBT?
This would seem difficult to address in relation to ME/CFS as patients are likely to be exposed to treatments that are ineffective or even harmful.
The clearest cut example is GET, where adherence to the treatment is likely to be harmful, so logically the course of action demonstrating the most 'self-compassion' would be not adhering to this treatment.
The logic is somewhat circular though - questionnaire answering behaviour about self-compassion is associated with questionnaire answering behaviour on questions relating to stress and medical adherence.
Since they are not measuring behaviours (self-compassion, experience of stress and medical adherence) directly, they may merely be measuring a bias in how people answer questionnaires. (Perhaps we could think of it as a questionnaire answering "style".)
Marketingspeech does not hold a candle to psychobabble. Do they just throw papers with words written on them and pick the ones that go furthest or is there another Rube Goldberg process by which they invent their vocabulary?
"...women tend to be less adherent to some medical regimens than men (Manteuffel et al. 2013)"
Riiiiight maybe doctor attitudes in the clinic could be related?
I couldn't find a reference to CBT in the study, so I wonder what treatment patients were or weren't adhering to?
I think it means adherence to the "sick role" or whatever they call it these days. It's cringey to see so often this talk of "illness identity". I don't get it.
To advocate for better treatment is exactly how a population of stigmatized patients would behave. And this weird obsession with the "illness identity" expresses surprise at why sick people would ever seek medical care and are well-informed about their health, which is considered perfectly normal with, I guess, "good patients" that can be dealt with easier.
I saw a tweet from a medical instructor a few days ago saying that as a special assignment to his cohort, he had them spend a few minutes with patients to see how it is to live with illness. Which I guess means that this is not standard. Which explains a lot. Supply-side medicine is as good a term for it as it gets, the idea that the patient is an optional and otherwise inconsequential host to a self-existing disease, unless it's all in their head, of course, then the complete and irreversible opposite.
Limitations of the study: participants have self-reported diagnoses (not confirmed by professionals).
The study admits that self-report of compliance measures (of exercise, diet, meds, etc.) is "somewhat reliable."
Not a representative sample.
Also, the sample is self-selected (includes only those who chose to answer the survey online).
The study is uselessly too broad in scope.
Yes, when most medical advice is tripe, being non-compliant is self-compassion.
Bastard bolshie patients.
And sometimes literal physical self-preservation.
Separate names with a comma.