Would "The Conceptualisation of ME/CFS" work better? To me that slightly shifts the framing to an active academic endeavour in the mind of the reader and medicine/science generally, and away from a suggestion of "abnormal beliefs in patients' heads". It also positions it as a dynamic, developing process, with even our description of core features such as PEM potentially yet to be refined as mechanisms are uncovered.
I like the word concept. It's something I know from science and business, then I've seen it used in the social sciences but not in a belief-specific sense. You have 'concept cars' for example. Just because it is
communication of an idea doesn't make it about beliefs. And I think bps will try that nonsense whatever it is called anywya. Conceptualisation sounds more like a process and less science, straightforward to me.
But it is also so context-dependent how things are received so I'm interested if your experience from being in the sector is that it would be better-received.
Yes it's definitely fatigue, but it's FATIGUE! - intransigent, just varying in intensity and associated with a feeling of being poisoned - that something is fundamentally wrong at a cellular level. How I might imagine the early stages of being in a cyanide gas chamber might feel.
I think the move to remove the word fatigue is unfortunately vital. And yes, even when we use the term it is covering 100 different types we might have including a concussion-type feeling not being able to wake up or more physical types. But utter exhaustion, pain and illness is the point where we acknowledge it and relates to the crash bit and the 'catching up with us' bit. The bits that are distinctive and worth highlighting.
I also agree that certainly if we've had it long enough to stand a chance of describing it because we've had some busy vs slacker times then those with ME/CFS do probably 'look like' a pretty identifiable pattern. And would stand out like a sore thumb to someone who has met a few if we were on their ward for a week. And we wouldn't look like the old cliche or the name with the word 'fatigued' means people expect, but depending on whether they get sleep reversal, restless legs, too exhausted to sleep etc could have all sorts of other (wrong) assumptions made about them as poor best-fits because they don't understand this cycle.
Sadly bps ruin all sorts of terms we need and should be able to just use for straightforward meaning by capture, how to highlight this without having to acknowledge it was a cynical move I don't know other than being more precise and making sure it is differentiated as outside that term. But giving good, almost visually depictive, and catchy examples to go along with exhaustion and the term 'crash' is a good start. So that it also doesn't just get 'captured' and faded as a term too.
Many say you can tell a pwme by their eyes and I think that's generally true (like someone who has flu and a migraine trying to hide it at a job interview), over the assumption someone will always be walking slowly or seem sleepy.
I was thinking on the FM inclusion (and had points to add on getting away from that old habit of people thinking FM and CFS are two sides of the same coin with heuristics like more fatigue = CFS, more pain = FM... now we need to move to calling ME/CFS a condition identified by a PEM-based cycle with some other quite specific patterns of symptoms, rather than the cliched 'illness of exclusion', which has never been accurate and has inferences) and how that harks back to the deliberate non-specificity. Tired people it not
really mattering which label they got 'because they all end up at the same treatment in some form' type attitude. Which is why we are in the pickle we are in with stats, funding, outcome info (and indeed 'value for money' like is it really effective) etc.
I absolutely agree atm the default is wanting to just keep it as another one of those bucket ones they chuck under MUS/functional pathway for the 'third way' in medicine, and that they are using a weak reconceptualising of their term 'fatigue' in order to do so.
I think shoving fatigue in very broad terms into all their surveillance questionnaires is a way of fishing out people with a pretty vast spectrum into this functional pathway - which
then (once stuck under it) very much has its own concept of what
that is. Much like the term 'mental health' uses saying 'everyone feels sad when their dog dies, gets dragged down by an illness I'm just asking you to say that's true because we will help you' to get something on someone's notes but then that in itself is being used to have implications/inferences about the origins or what their condition is.
It's just one of those things if 'outside the medical context' it might be technically as a broader category 'true', what it will actually mean pathway-wise inside that context
isn't. And it seems once labelled with that one many have been trained not to be curious it might cover a range/isn't 'one thing' - and that bps one thing is wrong, and not going to get picked apart and differentiated any time soon. So it's not 'fatigue' as per all their literature, policies and pathways.
Shame they literally branded us with the term (which is why the acronym now needs to be encouraged to not be 'spelled out' and in particular sly questions or claims of 'not understanding it' to force us to spell it out and brand ourselves).