Cognitive-behavior therapy: why is it so vilified in the chronic fatigue syndrome community?

'A life I can cope with'. An alternative model of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for CFS/ME

Objectives

This study aimed to explore the experience of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) aimed at better management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), rather than increasing activity.

Design

This was a qualitative study using grounded theory analysis.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 13 adults who had engaged in CBT at a specialist CFS/ME service in which CBT is aimed at improved management of the condition.

Results

A model was produced in which participants felt more able to cope with CFS/ME. Reduced fatigue did not seem to be a necessary precondition to managing. This has implications for CBT for CFS/ME.

Conclusions

Specialist CBT for CFS/ME may result in improved coping and reduced distress, independently of changes in fatigue.

Patient or Public Contribution

The researcher met with a representative from the university's service user advisory group (SAGE), who had lived experience of CFS/ME. They commented on possible questions for the interview topic guide and provided advice on ways in which ethical issues specific to CFS/ME could be considered, for example, prevention of harm during interviews. Second, for quality assurance as part of respondent validation, a proposed draft of the grounded theory was discussed with participants.

Approaching recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: Challenges to consider in research and practice

There are unique methodological challenges to studying and assessing recovery in myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. This study explored these challenges through interviewing 13 physicians who treat myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. Our deductive thematic analysis produced four themes to consider when approaching recovery: lifespan differences in the illness experience; the heterogeneity of myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome-case definitions, etiological stance, and misdiagnosis; patient follow-up and selection bias; and assessment logistics. We discuss how researchers and clinicians can use these considerations when working with patients, drafting recovery criteria, and interpreting treatment outcomes.

Defining and measuring recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome: the physician perspective

PURPOSE

To inform an operationalised definition of recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) for research and practice. Without a consensus on defining and measuring recovery, there will continue to be controversy amongst researchers, clinicians, and patients when interpreting treatment outcomes.

METHOD

This study explores physicians' views on recovery from ME and CFS. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 physician participants who are experts in the ME and CFS field. Our deductive thematic analysis, using a realist perspective, provided a framework for differentiating recovery and significant improvement.

RESULTS

Physicians conceptualised recovery as complete symptom remission and a return to premorbid functioning (adjusted for with age), whereas they viewed significant improvement as a substantial reduction in symptoms with considerable functional gains, where patients may operate in daily life but still must cope or be treated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide recommendations and approaches for measuring: daily functioning, symptomatology, quality of life, and physical functioning. Implications for rehabilitation Physicians viewed recovery as complete symptom remission and a return to premorbid functioning (adjusted for with age). Recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome should be viewed as multidimensional, considering patients' daily life, psychosocial functioning, and overall physical functioning. These findings can improve practitioner-client interactions, as they provide recommendations for measuring recovery in research and practice.