I did notice the other day when looking at the Versus Arthritis website regarding something else that they'd digressed into a page on fatigue Managing fatigue | Causes, self-help, support and that it ended in a bit on research where they said they were funding studies on 'talking therapies' (quote box below)
but in the 'talk about how you are feeling section' then talked about CBT as a talking therapy ("There are things that can help if you’re feeling low. Your healthcare team may recommend a talking therapy, such as
cognitive behaviour therapy – also known as CBT.")- which isn't really even a talking therapy in the way they suggesting 'talking helps' (because the new not really CBTs tend to be one-way 'correction of abberant thoughts'
not talking out stresses and getting validation at least, like counselling )
Research and new developments
Versus Arthritis-funded research has found talking therapies can help reduce the impact fatigue has on people with arthritis. Our researchers are currently testing whether these therapies can be provided as a treatment by rheumatology teams.
Versus Arthritis is also funding a review of the interventions that can be offered to help combat fatigue in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Most new drug treatments for inflammation in arthritis are now also tested to see if they reduce fatigue.
I will agree with you that the spiel seems to be a lot more careful with other conditions they can't as easily brand as functional (and the mislead of 'can't be sure there isn't part psychological cause') and noticed here that it says "can help reduce the
impact fatigue has on people" rather than claims it would reduce fatigue itself (which you'll not they
are testing in drug treatments)
But I think this is just semantics/branding rather than can necessarily reassure what the precise content is.
Particularly if it is CBT rather than eg access to counselling if someone is genuinely (as the guidelines for ME/CFS sold including it) struggling with grief of what they can't do or relationship issues etc. That is gotten away with because CBT has been kept as a black box term (something I find outrageous given its origins, and how anything to do with people's mind and beliefs should be seen as needing to be more transparent even than medicine), and astoundingly everyone seems happy to just parrot the line given about what it is they are sending people off to (and why it is that way).
The real CBT was stuff developed on a model of eg social phobia or catastrophisation, and the 'delivery style' that the term now seems to be used for actually was developed because it was correct for that small niche of diagnosed people (delivered by someone who could change diagnosis if it was incorrect). I'm not sure there technically is/should be such a thing as generic/transdiagnostic 'CBT' based on the inventors idea of what people should change (normally I'd guess, do things I do and think my way). And I haven't heard of or seen the very good 'fatigue impact' model that you'd think would have started with interviewing the very people they suggest might need support etc.
When
what is being delivered is the actually 'drug' equivalent, and everyone is looking at and naming the 'delivery mechanism' ie 'syringe vs pill' equivalent instead as if that bit being used elsewhere means whatever they are re-educating in must be the right thing. So yes who knows what they are actually 'getting'. Or what it does other than makes them put down the right answers to the questionnaire (it is quite a pushy and questioning 'therapy')
And a big difference of course with ME/CFS is that these conditions have physicians running clinics, checking and logging progression vs treatment programmes and actual treatment whether it is specifically for the condition or other things to help with other symptoms (rather than the lie we have when they mean that of claiming CBT to change our thoughts is 'treating symptoms' because thinking we have symptoms is a false belief).
What we currently have now in ME/CFS is that tiny bit of leeway that allowed a line for CBT to be included in the Nice guideline only really 'for those who have other comorbidities' (such as the 'feeling low' section here) being used to keep the old staff who used an entirely different 'spirit' to be delivered by CBT in place being delivered by embedded CBT (which can't exist in theory because you should have to give informed consent). Who are now [still] claiming it 'treats symptoms', ..
...but which cyclically as a claim is only based on old debunked cfs-CBT research where the CBT was 'false beliefs you have symptoms' but because they then bounced that into other conditions like chronic pain/fatigue based on that errant research are now bouncing that back into ME/CFS as if it isn't the same old wine.
SO it might be worth looking into the research you've seen and whether as you trace back the references (and then what those references were based on) whether it actually originates from/got its ideas it would work from the old cfs-CBT literature.
We need a catchy term for this 'technique/tactic' because I feel like I'm doing a bad job of describing it... sounds like another 'somethingwashing' to me (where cfs-cbt is recycled through another condition to make its origins look like lupus rather than false beliefs cfs)?