Does the Lightning Process Training Programme Reduce Chronic Fatigue in Adolescents and Young Adult Cancer Survivors? 2021, Fauske, Reme et al

Does the Lightning Process Training Programme Reduce Chronic Fatigue in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors? A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study

Abstract
Background: We report on a pilot intervention study exploring the efficacy of the Lightning Process® training programme for reducing chronic fatigue and improving health-related quality of life in cancer survivors.

Methods: 13 adolescent and young adult cancer survivors previously treated for sarcoma or Hodgkin lymphoma were enrolled.

A mixed-methods approach was applied. This involved the use of five validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) questionnaires at baseline and the three- and six-month follow-up points to obtain quantitative data.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the intervention with emphasis on the participants’ experiences and outcomes.

A reflexive thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts. Results: A significant reduction (p < 0.001) in the total fatigue score from baseline to the three- and six-month follow-up points was documented.

The correlation coefficients between the various PROMs at baseline and the six-month follow-up point indicated considerable overlap between the measures.

The qualitative findings of the interviews corresponded well with the PROM findings.

Most participants experienced both less fatigue and explicit improvement in their energy level.

The aspects of the intervention found to be particularly helpful were the theoretical rationale and the coping techniques mediated.

Conclusion: These encouraging results here reported should be of interest to the general oncological community, although they require confirmation through a larger and controlled study.

 

Poor cancer survivors that are put through this garbage.... Haven't they been through enough?

 

Agree and to do this to adolescents is just cruel. I'm very surprised to see Radiumhospitalet involved in this study. They are the most specialised hospital in Norway for cancer therapy and research into cancer.

 

I have a family member who's a cancer survivor with fatigue. I've noticed that he has something resembling PEM, although it's much less disabling and it takes a lot more for him to trigger it, than it does for me. I'm not sure if it would qualify as PEM in the sense that we with ME experience it, but it was definitely a backlash of sorts as a result of over-exertion. And not the kind that anybody could experience by doing to much, this was something other than an expected increase in fatigue.

I wonder if the kids who were put through this have a PEM-like phenomenon like him, or not. I would assume that LP is a lot more dangerous/damaging to patient populations with a clear manifestation of PEM than those with fatigue without it.

 

quote from the paper:
The present study investigated the experience and efficacy of Phil Parker’s Lightning Process® (LP), a three-day intervention programme claimed to be helpful in relation to various conditions, including myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Unlike patients with ME/CFS, our participants had an oncological history, which most probably explained their fatigue. However, when fatigue persists for years in AYA cancer survivors without any medical comorbidities, it is important to test new treatment approaches. The LP intervention investigated in this study represents such an approach.

 

perhaps they would do better to get an economist to conduct a cost/benefit analysis.

 

Another quote:
We believe that the improvements described in the interviews and reflected in the PROMs are less likely due to chance or change in life events and more likely attributable to the intervention. Yet, “finally being taken seriously”, receiving considerable attention, and being invited to participate in a clinical study seeking to reduce fatigue cannot be ruled out as partial explanations

 

I don't think this is a state that can exist.

 

This is how they perceive chronic fatigue:

- A key assumption of the LP is that chronic fatigue arises from dysregulations of the central and autonomic nervous systems, thereby resulting in a “false alarm” that can be turned off through top-down mental processes

ETA: With this as reference:
Parker, P.; Aston, J.; Finch, F. Understanding the Lightning Process Approach to CFS/ME; a Review of the Disease Process and the Approach. J. Exp. Psychother./Rev. Psihoter. Exp. 2018, 21, 21–28.

 

Given the study only looked at self reported measures how can they say ‘explicit improvement in … energy level’, especially given an explicit intention of the intervention is to change how participants perceive and report their symptoms.

Given at worst participants are explicitly instructed within the intervention to lie about their symptoms to themselves and others (including any parents/guardians and doctors) and the presumed likelihood that cancer survivors are at higher risk of reoccurrence of their cancer, how can it be in anyway ethical to undertake this research with children.

Also how is it acceptable to subject minors to a treatment that is subject to commercial confidentiality where informed consent and independent replication are by definition impossible?

 

I still can't wrap my head around people talking about LP as if it's a legit thing.

From what i remember LP cured anorexia, ocd, dyslexia, ms and so on by NLP / the secret on steroids mechanisms. Thinking good healthy thoughts -> activates the bodies natural healing channels (whatever that means) -> neurological pathways manifests and creates the changes you want -> the life you love.

Around 2008-2012 LP was in some quarters said to induce the placebo response making you make your body healthy.

And now, here we are, LP reduced to reducing fatigue.

 

Very good point about possible reoccurence @Peter Trewhitt

Ridiculous in the first place to encourage children to ignore their symptoms. If their cancer returns, and they continue to follow the LP process of denying symptoms, early warning signs may be missed.

If these children become ill with something else, following the LP process, would they deny this as well? Where does this stop?

What must this program do to people's belief and confidence in themselves? To be told the correct thing to do is to ignore and deny one's senses. Seems to be gaslighting.

 

*Not able to forumalte my thoughts properly so sorry if this is a bit messy.

I also wonder about the ethical aspects. I don't think psychologists are allowed to 'treat' people people with similar methods. The having you deny your reality and what your senses are telling you and so on. They can challenge your belives and perceptions yes, but not 'coerce' or on a general basis get you to doubt your own perception of reality or tell you what all your problems stems form (induce/transfer false memories of child abuse etc).

Similarly, from what i've gathered, police interrigations used to be about getting suspects to confess as that would make it easy to get a conviction. Leading police to trick/coerce/lie to suspects to get one. Making people confess to crimes they had not comitted. And in some cases, even thinking they had comitted crimes they had not infact done.

I'm sure there are better ways to explain this, but what i'm trying to say is that there are plenty of ways to get a person to do / say what you want. Doesnt make it 1. right and 2. what they report after treatments like this has any root in reality

Which is why psychologist and the criminal justice system is trying to move away from these practices.


And yes, these reasearchers must be fairly certain about their fatigue being nothting but a false alarm for even to be considering getting people to ignore it.

+ as you say @Peter Trewhitt telling people to ignore their symptoms (or as the LP i was administered, that their mind can control their physiology) when there is risk of reoccurrence, which can lead to death, can't be considered ethical.

 

Thirteen people and relying on questionnaires? Time I carried out a study to show that bald, retired mathematicians are beautiful.

Quote "The LP approach is neither purely psychological nor purely biological." Agreed. It is financial.

 

Also the issue of how soon post treatment this intervention takes place is relevant, as cancer treatment may impair the immune system, leaving survivors at, albeit temporarily, higher risk of adventitious infections.

It is vital not to instruct patients to ignore symptoms or to leave them confused about what is hypothesised idiopathic fatigue and what are symptoms of new or reoccurring conditions, without clear guidelines available to distinguish between the presumed idiopathic fatigue and other new or reoccurring conditions.

Also is it reasonable to instruct children to ignore the symptom of fatigue, even if there is no identified underlying biomedical cause, when no one has systematically studied the consequences of doing so. Most studies on ME involving increasing activity (ie GET) have been found to have inadequate reporting of harms, indeed they claim minimal adverse consequences, when survey evidence indicates around 50% of those so treated experiencing adverse events. Similarly the LP organisation fails to report any reliable mechanism for recording harm and seems to accuse those that do claim consequent harm of fabrication or misreporting.

 

edit: Mixed the names of the hospitals, thought he worked there. Now i am as suprised as you are, unless they have been working together on other projects.

I'll save you some time.

1. Math is beautiful.
2. The more math you know the more beauty you have.
3. Mathematicians know the most math.
-> Mathematicians are the most beautiful people. *insert tiny little square*

 

A reason why peer reviewers should always look at the references.

 

Once again, where is child protection in this situation?



If one is taught by this program, or others to reframe one's pain, fatigue etc., will these study participants and clients also ignore and deny other issues, such as abuse, that causes psychological pain?

To be coached to deny and ignore illness symptoms is very questionable at the very least.

What will it take for these type of studies to be stopped?

The cognitive dissonance created by these "therapies" is very concerning.

Most people have likely experienced the discomfort of having some symptom or troublesome situation denied by others, or brushed under the carpet.

If indeed factual, by the time these symptoms or issues come to light for others, the problem has possibly worsened.

 

You know it's serious when the intervention has a copyright to it. Legit.

As usual, the disgust towards this horror should be levelled at whoever approved of this. It takes a complete breakdown in ethics and basic professionalism for anyone to approve such a study, especially so on children. This is all made so much worse by targeting children. Everyone involved in approving this should be fired from their job with prejudice, have clearly no capacity to perform their duties.

And medicine continues to regress. Absurd. One foot in the 21st century, for acute medicine, the other firmly in the 19th century, for everything chronic. It's truly like a $1B/year astrology department at NASA, the absurdity of it all is beyond the scale.