1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 19th September 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Study protocol for POSITIF, ... feasibility trial of a brief cognitive-behavioural intervention ... for post-stroke fatigue, 2020, Gillespie, Chalder

Discussion in 'Other psychosomatic news and research' started by Sly Saint, Jul 13, 2020.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,822
    Location:
    UK
    Study protocol for POSITIF, a randomised multicentre feasibility trial of a brief cognitive-behavioural intervention plus information versus information alone for the treatment of post-stroke fatigue


    https://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-020-00622-0
     
  2. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    612
    POSITIF. Are these people capable of conducting a study without a catchy name. It's all about the marketing with them, think of a catchy title then build a study around it.
     
    inox, bobbler, JoanneS and 19 others like this.
  3. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,250
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    42,149
    Location:
    UK
    Going off topic a bit - I assume this is the result of a Priority Setting Partnership process. It does worry me that these are being used to justify funding for this sort of Chalder junk trials. That's why I'm glad S4ME is represented on the ME/CFS PSP process. We need to ensure we don't end up with it justifying more crap psych research. It is concerning that with fatigue occurring in so many conditions, the Chalder CBT gravy train rolls on.
     
  5. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,504
    It's CBT for ME applied to post stroke fatigue. With a no treatment control group compared to a placebo and expectation setting pseudotreatment. And a study name that could be a caricature.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2020
    Simbindi, Cheshire, Mithriel and 8 others like this.
  6. Sarah94

    Sarah94 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,464
    Location:
    UK
    I think they need a spelling intervention
     
  7. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,299
    Location:
    Canada
    The people who approved this are a complete joke. Chalder is a lost cause, that's not an issue, many people are. But there are people who oversee her work and give approval for doing the exact same things in loops despite never delivering anything and that's just wrong. It makes a mockery of not only the system of medicine but the entire system of science.

    And the obsession with fatigue despite Chalder being totally clueless about what it even means. You can't teach something you don't understand. Evidence-based medicine needs to be dismantled entirely, it has clearly failed while appearing to serve no specific purpose that cannot be served otherwise.
     
    bobbler, JoanneS, Simbindi and 9 others like this.
  8. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,250
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Maybe a poem - rhyming options digestif, aperitif
     
  9. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,333
  10. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,065
    Location:
    UK

    The only interesting thing from such trials would be to compare the different response biases that they measure with different diseases.
     
    bobbler, Simbindi, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  11. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,421
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Post Stroke Intervention Trial - In Vain Expectation, POSITIVE
     
    Simbindi, MEMarge, Sarah94 and 4 others like this.
  12. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,421
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Post Stroke Intervention Trial - InValid Evidence, POSITIVE
     
  13. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,822
    Location:
    UK
    POSITIF

    hmm no chance of any bias with a name like that
     
    bobbler, Simbindi, Mij and 4 others like this.
  14. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,299
    Location:
    Canada
    Apparently this would be the "feasibility" study: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183286. Quoted because those things are always performative, with the conclusion written far in advance.
    1/3 dropped out.
    Everything is feasible if you just don't bother when it's not. What a total waste. The people overseeing this have failed completely in their duties.

    That is, unless this is an unrelated feasibility study for the exact same thing. Chalder does have a habit of doing the same things over and over without there being any connection between those.
     
    bobbler, Simbindi, Cheshire and 6 others like this.
  15. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,421
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Ha, the feasibility study for the feasibility study.

    @dave30th - one to watch
     
  16. Sarah94

    Sarah94 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,464
    Location:
    UK
    Lmao
     
    Simbindi, ladycatlover and MEMarge like this.
  17. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,147
    Location:
    Germany
    I would like to posit the notion that this is decidedly iffy.
     
    bobbler, Simbindi, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  18. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,250
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    come on. What you’re really saying is it’s positively iffy. Innit
     
  19. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,822
    Location:
    UK
    Post stroke intervention trial in fatigue (POSITIF): Randomised multicentre feasibility trial

    Abstract

    Objective: To test the feasibility of a telephone delivered intervention, informed by cognitive behavioural principles, for post-stroke fatigue, and estimated its effect on fatigue and other outcomes.

    Design: Randomised controlled parallel group trial.

    Setting: Three Scottish stroke services.

    Subjects: Stroke survivors with fatigue three months to two years post-stroke onset.

    Interventions: Seven telephone calls (fortnightly then a 'booster session' at 16 weeks) of a manualised intervention, plus information about fatigue, versus information only.

    Main measures: Feasibility of trial methods, and collected outcome measures (fatigue, mood, anxiety, social participation, quality of life, return to work) just before randomisation, at the end of treatment (four months after randomisation) and at six months after randomisation.

    Results: Between October 2018 and January 2020, we invited 886 stroke survivors to participate in postal screening: 188/886 (21%) returned questionnaires and consented, of whom 76/188 (40%) were eligible and returned baseline forms; 64/76 (84%) returned six month follow-up questionnaires. Of the 39 allocated the intervention, 23 (59%) attended at least four sessions. At six months, there were no significant differences between the groups (adjusted mean differences in Fatigue Assessment Scale -0.619 (95% CI -4.9631, 3.694; p = 0.768), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 -0.178 (95% CI -3.823, 3.467, p = 0.92), and the Patient Health Questionnaire -0.247 (95% CI -2.935, 2.442, p = 0.851). There were no between-group differences in quality of life, social participation or return to work.

    Conclusion: Patients can be recruited to a trial of this design. These data will inform the design of further trials in post-stroke fatigue.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35866206/
     
    Simbindi, Hutan, MEMarge and 2 others like this.
  20. CRG

    CRG Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    UK
    886 > 188 > 76 > 64 > 39 > 23 ! Yes you can get 2.6% of a patient population to partially participate in a trial - but exactly what does that self selecting 2.6% represent ? The most well ? The most desperate ? The most bored ?

    886 people and only 23 thought this was worth pursuing should be key evidence that there is something profoundly lacking in what is on offer, not "patients can be recruited to a trial of this design".
     
    bobbler, Simbindi, Mithriel and 15 others like this.

Share This Page