Full recovery is possible: how women recover from [ME/CFS] outside formal clinical settings, 2026, Harper et al

forestglip

forestglip

Moderator
Staff member
Full recovery is possible: how women recover from myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) outside formal clinical settings

Harper, Julie

Aims
Latest UK guidance for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) states there is no cure (NICE, 2021), leaving those with the illness without hope of recovery. However, many have recovered outside formal medical settings, although little is known about the methods used or how they define recovery. The aims of this research are to understand the factors which individuals who identify as having recovered from ME/CFS believe led to their recovery, and what recovery means to them.

Method
This study explored the experiences of eight women who recovered using psychologically mediated approaches. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results
Participants defined recovery as a return to good health, but with a better life, and no fear of relapse. Two foundational elements supported recovery: cultivation of a recovery mindset and development of an explanatory narrative about the causes and perpetuations of the illness. Building on these foundations, active recovery methods involved responding to symptoms differently and addressing root causes, such as emotional trauma, stress and identity factors.

Discussion
These findings align with cognitive and behavioural theories of symptom maintenance in ME/CFS, but extend existing models by highlighting the importance of foundational conditions, particularly belief in recovery and an explanatory model, and resolution of predisposing and perpetuating psychological patterns that appear to enable meaningful change.

Conclusion
This study contributes much-needed evidence for full recovery from ME/CFS and provides a basis for future investigation into active psychological recovery methods. It also offers hope for those living with the illness that recovery is both possible and achievable.

Web | DOI | Journal of Psychosomatic Research | Abstract only

Edited to "Abstract only"
 
Last edited:
When I first got sick I actually read, listened, and watch a lot of these mind body recoveries. Oddly a lot of them I wouldn’t say were “recovered” most were just living inside new energy limits but spinning it. Interested if that’s what this pans out too.

Personally recovered to me means you can push yourself physically and be fine.
 
"Method: This study explored the experiences of eight women who recovered using psychologically mediated approaches. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis."

Can't see anything here that can provide any evidence.

Not clear to me from the wording but was the study prospective? Did it have a control group?

Or did they just ask people who have recovered and made the sample only of those who responded?
 
rvallee said:
This is just this era's version of faith in god and angels.
Click to expand...
Agree very much. So much of these things can be out down to humanity’s desire to instil order and control over things which are just chaotic.

The universe, nature does not have justice or fairness. It just is.

When we cannot cope with that, cannot accept that things just randomly happen outside of our control or understanding, for better or worse, we create myths, belief systems and rituals. Sometimes it’s harmless. But we’ve also seen what harm can be done.
 
MSEsperanza said:
Or did they just ask people who have recovered and made the sample only of those who responded?
Click to expand...
In other words, they cherry-picked anecdotes by selecting for them, then positively reported their preferred narrative model with excessive bias. This is multiple logical fallacies in a trench coat.

It's not just that the industry is "solving" the problem of bias by making it a good thing, it's literally maximizing it. The more bias, the better (the appearance of positive outcomes).

There is no reason to not apply this nonsense to depression ("just be happy") and anxiety ("just relax") and I have no idea what the reaction will be when it inevitably happens, but I fear it will adopt it without much resistance. By creeping alternative medicine like this into health care, this will apply to anything and everything. The inevitable outcome is only disease is real, illness and symptoms are a flaw, a weakness, mental illness, failure of coping.

This is all like the Elmo meme choosing between a pile of vegetables and a pile of cocaine. What a disaster.
 
Last edited:
Despite citing the 2021 NICE guidelines for ME/CFS, the abstract gives the misleading impression that the "active psychological recovery methods" which supposedly support the "cognitive and behavioural theories of symptom maintenance" have never been part of formal medical settings but hope has now recently been discovered when looking outside these formal settings and a bright future awaits.

Did the author not understand the substance of the 2021 NICE guidelines for ME/CFS? Are they not aware that CBT/GET was literally the default approach in formal medical settings of the NHS for 15 years? Did they not come across the PACE trial which tested claims of 'recovery'?

The article presents its findings as an extension to existing models, yet describes what is already part of the existing models: "belief in recovery and an explanatory model, and resolution of predisposing and perpetuating psychological patterns that appear to enable meaningful change".

Conclusion: This study contributes much-needed evidence for full recovery from ME/CFS and provides a basis for future investigation into active psychological recovery methods. It also offers hope for those living with the illness that recovery is both possible and achievable.
Click to expand...

Am I somehow back in 1996 again and the last 30 years never happened?
 
Last edited:
neurophusion said:
Despite citing the 2021 NICE guidelines for ME/CFS, the abstract gives the misleading impression that the "active psychological recovery methods" which supposedly support the "cognitive and behavioural theories of symptom maintenance" have never been part of formal medical settings but hope has now recently been discovered when looking outside these formal settings and a bright future awaits.

Did the author not understand the substance of the 2021 NICE guidelines for ME/CFS? Are they not aware that CBT/GET was literally the default approach in formal medical settings of the NHS for 15 years? Did they not come across the PACE trial which tested claims of 'recovery'?

The article presents its findings as an extension to existing models, yet describes what is already part of the existing models: "belief in recovery and an explanatory model, and resolution of predisposing and perpetuating psychological patterns that appear to enable meaningful change".



Am I somehow back in 1996 again and the last 30 years never happened?
Click to expand...
As if some kind of trauma has never been treated in any therapy before, some members and me have gone through all that.
Aha erlebnis, insights but still had ME/CFS.

Physical disease can't be therapied away and certainly not by CBT.

Made redundant by NICE the authors find new ways to get attention,
Don't sound the answers from the recovered an awful lot like CBT?
I can psychologically dig an even deeper rabbithole ending up Down Under but that won't cure my ME/CFS.

NICE concluded: Only when asked untill then SHUT UP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom