Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for chronic fatigue and CFS: outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK (2020) Adamson, Wessely, Chalder

I meant that the target population for their "intervention" consists of essentially 10% of the adult population yet their cherry-picked clinic and intervention would barely see a client per week. The economics of this are beyond laughable. That's the standard they set by choosing "CF or CFS". That's their criteria, since they make no distinction whatsoever beyond any unexplained fatigue or the most severe bedbound ME patients, all wrapped up under the same banner of "CF or CFS".

In testing effectiveness, cost-benefit matters. The cost-benefit here are clearly disastrous, the costs involved are staggering per patient. Which is besides the point anyway since it shows no benefit to speak of anyway, and satisfaction is an entirely meaningless evaluation, lots of very satisfied clients for aged urine therapy. It remains that the conclusions are pure fiction and clearly should not have passed peer review, which there probably wasn't any.

 

I think American usage of King's English must be different. It isn't used much, but I don't think I've ever seen/read "queen's English"--maybe because we don't care about the monarch one way or the other? I have to do a survey with friends who know more about this than I do.

This is the definition of King's English from the Merriam-Webster (American) dictionary:
"standard, pure, or correct English speech or usage"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/King's English

And Kingsley Amis in 1997 published "The King's English : A Guide to Modern Usage"
I do believe you people already had a queen at that point in time.

 

I actually think 'the Queen's English' was largely used in a different context from Amis. Following the two world wars (the first probably having the greatest impact) there was a significant shift in the social role of spoken English accent because of large numbers of working class men rising in the ranks in the army so that social status became more fluid. In the 1950s and 1960s the standard trend was for people of all classes to modify their accent to fit in with a spoken norm either called BBC English or Queen's English. Nobody actually tried to speak like the Queen (who clearly had a reason for sounding above everyone else) but they tried to speak like Richard Dimbleby or Cliff Mitchelmore on BBC magazine programmes. This was a strictly spoken concept, otherwise known as RP, or Received Pronunciation.

By the 1970s there was a backlash and by the 1980s it became fashionable to make a virtue out of a regional accent. The Queen's English went back to being considered 'posh'. The reason why this series of events is specifically associated with 'the Queen's English' is I suspect the much greater social role of spoken English broadcasting with the advent of television.

Amis, on the other hand, was interested purely in written English, for which the 'King's English' was the official norm - maybe dating back to the establishment of universal school education in the nineteenth century. I have never heard people talk of 'the Queen's English' in this context.

 

This sounds about right to me, too.

 

Just wondering about 90% satisfaction (your satisfaction guarauntee with CBT, buy now and save 20%).

Very limited information on the methods for this result. I know what likely happened is the therapist, after getting to know you, asks the question are you satisfied with this process? Which is also tantamount to are you satisfied me? It's a hard thing to say your dissatified with someone's work - especially when they're nice about it and trying to help you. Even if that niceness and effort are channeled through the wrong therapy.

My question is, how can satisfaction be 90% is there is 30% drop-out?

So, 30% dropped out. Of that those that do, 28% don't improve or get worse and you have a 90% satisfaction rate. It's just something that seems silly on it's face. And put that in the absract as a big result. It makes you laugh.

 

"Recently making the news was a comment from Edward Heath, the Lord Privy Seal, stating that he had difficulty distinguishing the Beatles' Liverpudlian accents as "The Queen's English."
http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1963.1031.beatles.html

 

Now published
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076820951545

 

On pubmed as well

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32930040/

 

Has anyone yet checked if there are any substantive changes from the earlier pre-print version? I'll have to go over it today and see.

 

I haven't checked but the paper was accepted on July 30, a week before @Esther12 created this thread. The original PDF file on the KCL website is also named "pdf_proof_re_submit.pdf" so this may indicate it was the final version. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/132955332/pdf_proof_re_submit.pdf

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1307671665128730624

 

@rvallee I have a problem with the tweet from Keith Geraghty. I can't see the image of all those journal front pages, I just keep on going to the paper he's mentioned. Am I doing something stupid?

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076820951545

For anyone new I have pasted links to the relevant questionnaire scales used in the above paper that have been discussed here:

Chalder Fatigue Scale
http://www.goodmedicine.org.uk/files/assessment, chalder fatigue scale.pdf

S4ME discussion of the scale:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/explo...nic-fatigue-syndrome-1998-morriss-et-al.11065

Hospital and Anxiety & Depression Scale (HADS):
https://svri.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2016-01-13/HADS.pdf

S4ME discussion of the scale:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-hospital-anxiety-and-depression-scale-hads-a-discussion.10160/

Other scales used can be accessed in the Science Library (read only):
https://www.s4me.info/threads/questionnaires-and-scales-used-in-me-or-cfs-research.879/

 

Well, the causal claims are still there. I gave it a quick look and didn't see any changes.

 

Sometimes the cover image doesn't work on twitter. Is the link still working?

 

Yes, it still links to the paper.

 

This ....

... seems to be at odds with this ...

 

yes, as I pointed out last month--they draw causal inferences while denying they are. Even that sentence that says the changes are not due to "CBT alone" is an assertion that they are in part due to CBT--and they have zero evidence of that. This is a sham.

 

It's like those websites that exist to offer medical advice and then have a disclaimer that they don't offer medical advice.

The intent is clear but when criticized they can fall back to the disclaimer.