Management of ME/CFS in Belgium: An analysis based on patient needs, 2026, Cornelis et al

Dolphin

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Cornelis J, De Meulemeester K, Christiaens W, Jonckheer P, Savoye I, Dauvrin M, Kohn L. Castanares-Zapatero D, Budie J, Deprez G, Dobbeleers R, Olivier S, Tack M, Tas J. Management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome in Belgium: An analysis based on patient needs. Health Services Research (HSR) Brussels Belgium. 2026 Jun 30; KCE Reports 420AS.

English version,
https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/2026-06/KCE_420_Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome_Belgium_Report.pdf

Dutch version,
https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/2026-06/KCE_420A_Vermoeidheidssyndroom_Belgie_Synthese.pdf
 
The report says that half of the patients interviewed report being satisfied with their health care and having good continuity. This is surprising. And there are lots of other data that don't really support that, it seems to rest on most of the patients seeing the same GP most of the time, even though most avoid health care because it's usually pointless and consists mainly of barriers. Quotes in the report certainly don't paint a picture of competent health care. Actually most of the quotes pretty much demolish that statement, which is early on in the report. Odd. Satisfaction reports on health care are usually wildly inflated, but even by this standard this is basically turning a frown upside down and calling it a smile.

Very comprehensive. You can tell there were two camps: one reporting a disaster, the other seeing the disaster as perfectly fine. It makes for a very confusing report, where the data are catastrophic, but with an overall message close to "don't worry, be happy". And those camps are well-defined: the patients and their families, and the physicians, fully separated by the entire breadth of the issue. Well, three camps, there is a lot of neutral stuff in there, the work of professionals going through data without doing much interpretation. There is no need for much interpretation: it's bad, terrible.

It's hard to come up with a plan when the plan can only consist of: throw everything you've done, start over, this time good, ideally the exact opposite of what's been done so far. Everything is still to be done. As always. The title of the report includes "based on patient needs", and what's clearest of all is that nothing in how health care handles this has anything to do with those needs yet, in fact is pretty much confrontational about it. Which is a good explanation for why things are completely disastrous. There is no amount of marketing about patient-centered this and evidence-based that that can make up for the fact that here, what's offered is neither of those concepts.
 
Could somebody who has access to the reports attach the files to their post or alternatively private message sent me. I don't believe they have any copyright.

For the last 2 days, I have been blocked from getting them with the following message:

"Too Many Requests
The user has sent too many requests in a given amount of time."


To be honest, I mainly want the English-language
one.
I’m attaching the English file (which someone kindly sent me) in case anyone else has had problems accessing it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

KCE: how to better support CFS patients?​

30.06.2026
KCE
Chronic fatigue syndrome: how can we turn the tide for patients?


Myalgic encephalomyelitis, or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), is a complex condition with a severe impact on health. Because much remains unknown, treatment often remains a major challenge for healthcare providers. So how can these patients be better supported? The KCE first surveyed the patients themselves. This allowed the researchers to gain a clearer picture of the patients' difficulties and actual needs. Subsequently, using scientific literature and examples from abroad, they examined the crucial factors for effective care organization. Although information is limited, it is clear that a multidisciplinary, personalized, and sufficiently flexible approach is important. This approach must be able to adapt to a wide variety of symptoms and the patient's limitations. At the same time, there is a clear need for greater understanding of and knowledge about the disease, aided by targeted research programs. The expertise of all involved healthcare providers must also be further strengthened.

ME/CFS is characterized by deep, persistent fatigue without a clear cause that does not improve with rest. In addition, patients experience non-restorative sleep, are no longer able to maintain their former activity level, and experience episodes of worsening symptoms following physical, cognitive, or emotional exertion (post-exertional malaise). The condition is often also accompanied by pain and other general complaints.

Unfortunately, the underlying mechanisms of ME/CFS are still insufficiently understood. This complicates diagnosis and treatment and leads to a lack of understanding from those around them. The high response rate to the survey with which the KCE aimed to map the needs of patients (no fewer than 749 people participated) is as much a signal of the extent of their problems as the answers themselves.

Assault on the quality of life, on all levels

The survey reveals a sharp decline in quality of life in a context where even simple daily tasks become a challenge. For instance, 93% of respondents indicate having difficulty with everyday activities. More than 70% struggle with severe mobility problems — sometimes even requiring a wheelchair — and 91% report pain or other forms of discomfort.

The limitations imposed by the disease often create an additional burden. Because patients must carefully conserve their scarce energy , they are constantly forced to make choices: they must cancel activities they enjoy but that exhaust them, limit social contact, and give up future plans. They often have to drastically adapt their professional, social, and family lives to their limited capabilities. For many of them, it is a frustrating, discouraging, and depressing situation—especially because the reality of their illness is not always acknowledged by their loved ones or even by healthcare providers.

Many treatments, but not always effective

The wide variety of treatments
patients undergo is another striking finding from the survey. Energy management, many types of medication, physiotherapy, (neuro)psychological and psychosocial support, relaxation techniques, dietary adjustments, alternative therapies… the impression arises that many embark on a long search with varying results. This is not surprising: strategies to alleviate symptoms or improve functioning are often only partially scientifically substantiated. Moreover, no single approach is equally effective for everyone, highlighting the importance of a tailored approach. Unfortunately, patients also run the risk of resorting to many, often expensive, examinations and treatments that serve no real purpose.

In general, measures to regulate exertion and manage energy appear to be the most useful. At the same time, they can also limit patients in their activities and social contacts.

Lack of expertise and structure

Many patients who participated in the survey find their interactions with the healthcare system difficult. They often feel that healthcare providers, due to a lack of knowledge about ME/CFS, minimize their symptoms or attribute them to purely psychological causes. As a result, the diagnosis is often only made after months or even years: more than five years for 39% of the respondents. This clearly points to a need for more expertise and for a clearer and better-structured care pathway.

The Belgian government has been seeking solutions to improve care for ME/CFS patients for quite some time. However, currently there is only one multidisciplinary reference center active under a RIZIV agreement , and that is located in Flanders. Other institutions operate outside that system, which usually leads to higher costs for the patient. A revision of the system at the national level is therefore urgently needed.

No ready-made solution

How can care for ME/CFS best be organized? There is no simple answer to this. Of the four countries studied by the KCE in this research, only the United Kingdom currently has a structured and widely accessible care pathway . Both among our European neighbors and in Belgium itself, the uncertainties surrounding the causes of and treatments for ME/CFS make it difficult to develop a coherent strategy. Improving knowledge about the disease is therefore a crucial step to truly advance care. This requires, first and foremost, an intensification of scientific research .

In the meantime, and in the absence of a ready-made solution, the KCE can already list several key points to guide patients as effectively as possible. For instance, there is a need for a structured, multidisciplinary, and well-coordinated care pathway , supported by a larger number of specialized reference centers (particularly in Wallonia). Additionally, it is essential to strengthen the clinical expertise of all involved actors so that every patient has access to integrated, multidisciplinary care tailored to his or her individual situation.

It is also important to improve the accessibility of information regarding care, help, and support, including procedures for reasonable accommodations at school. This can be done, for example, through a single central platform or website where specialized care providers are clearly listed. In addition, measures for job retention and reintegration into the labor market are also supported. Clear recommendations can help employers implement adjustments that take into account patients' limited energy levels and fluctuating capacities — for example, through adjusted working hours and tasks, telework, or a gradual return to work.

This research was conducted in close collaboration with the patient associations BOFiP, CVS-contactgroep, Millions Missing Belgium, and 12ME.

You can consult the full KCE report 420A "Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome in Belgium: how to better respond to patient needs?" here.
 
In general, measures to regulate exertion and manage energy appear to be the most useful. At the same time, they can also limit patients in their activities and social contacts.
If a child with diabetes has to stop their football practice to adjust their blood sugar and insulin, you’d say that the diabetes is limiting their activities, not that the pump, needle or snack is.

It’s the disease that is limiting people with ME/CFS, not pacing.
the impression arises that many embark on a long search with varying results. This is not surprising: strategies to alleviate symptoms or improve functioning are often only partially scientifically substantiated.
There are exactly zero interventions that have any degree of scientific substantiation. A key part of science is to discard evidence that is too poor.
Moreover, no single approach is equally effective for everyone, highlighting the importance of a tailored approach.
There are no approaches that aim to improve the health of people with ME/CFS that have been proven to be effective, except for the removal of harmful elements which would be true for all diseases.
Unfortunately, patients also run the risk of resorting to many, often expensive, examinations and treatments that serve no real purpose.
Don’t forget harmful. And that patients are not always the ones initiating these, they face a lot of external pressure and are even forced to it by the government or healthcare practitioners.
 
A good and important step in the right direction overall. But needs some tweaking, like the word energy brings some very problematic assumptions with it (I prefer capacity, despite also being imperfect, as it is a more generic term with less specific focus on underlying mechanisms); the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of ME/CFS are effectively non-existent, not merely 'insufficient'; and I strongly advise our fellow patients and their representatives in Belgium to be very wary indeed of "multidisciplinary" anything at this stage as it almost always means you will end up being dealt with by psycho-behaviouralists under their model.

Of the four countries studied by the KCE in this research, only the United Kingdom currently has a structured and widely accessible care pathway .
Might be news to people in the UK.

If that is the standard then we need probably a new standard.
 
Last edited:
For instance, there is a need for a structured, multidisciplinary, and well-coordinated care pathway , supported by a larger number of specialized reference centers (particularly in Wallonia).
One of my main desires for ME/CFS is to have our disease taken on by neurologists. Obviously, not the functional neurological disorder ones, but the neurologists who rely on science.

I hate how our disease is only seen by people who happened to take an interest in us. In my home province of Québec, there are no specialists who see ME/CFS. None. In British Columbia, we are lucky to have two clinics. One has a waitlist that’s longer than three years, and one entertains every kind of pseudoscience imaginable (though I’m grateful for the easy disability paperwork). If we had one specialty that took on our disease, we could have shorter wait times and have options of who we want to see.

I actually saw a neurologist yesterday for my headaches. He told me he doesn’t know much about chronic fatigue syndrome, which sucks because he’s still in residency. I made sure to bring up the DecodeME brain tissue finding at the end even if he probably will have forgotten it at the end of his busy day. I just wanted to make sure he knew our disease should be of interest to him. I know it will take so much more to get a specialty to accept to treat another disease, but I still wanted to do that.
 
A good and important step in the right direction overall. But needs some tweaking, like the word energy brings some very problematic assumptions with it (I prefer capacity, despite also being imperfect, as it is a more generic term with less specific focus on underlying mechanisms); the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of ME/CFS are effectively non-existent, not merely 'insufficient'; and I strongly advise our fellow patients and their representatives in the Netherlands to be very wary indeed of "multidisciplinary" anything at this stage as it almost always means you will end up being dealt with by psycho-behaviouralists under their model.


Might be news to people in the UK.

If that is the standard then we need probably a new standard.
Not UK. England and perhaps Wales
 
From Twitter:

ME/CFS Science @mecfsskeptic
Jul 3
1) In Belgium, the Federal Knowledge Centre (KCE) published a 144-page report on ME/CFS. It measured the healthcare needs and priorities of ME/CFS patients (shown in the graph below) and recommends investments in research and specialist centres for ME/CFS.
Figure 25 - Priority rating of need categories in people with ME/CFS (n=744)



2) The KCE makes scientific reports to guide policy. This report is part of the NEED project, which aims to identify healthcare needs in multiple medical conditions. They did a survey of 749 ME/CFS patients and conducted in-depth interviews with 19.


3) The NEED project is compiling a database of these healthcare needs. For ME/CFS, they found a large impact on quality of life. Patients had a mean EQ-5D-5L utility score of only 0.36. This questionnaire is often used for estimates of disease burden.



4) The value for ME/CFS is lower than that of other diseases (Crohn's disease, Long Covid, psychotic disorders, and melanoma) that have been compiled in the NEED database. The graph below is not in the report, but I've made it using the data given here:zenodo.org/records/19596655



5) Another notable result is that a majority of patients who tried graded exercise therapy reported that it worsened their condition. It had more adverse effects than other treatments including prolonged antibiotic treatment.




6) The report also analyzed the optimal organization of care for ME/CFS but it found there's almost no scientific literature on this: "There is a lack of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of any specific ME/CFS service model."


7) It looked at the situation in the UK, France, Italy, and the Netherlands but found that most countries do not have a national care pathway for ME/CFS and that care depended on a couple of local physicians and centres.


8) To improve the situation in Belgium, the KCE recommends multidisciplinary reference centres, improved education of physicians, a research agenda on ME/CFS, and improved recognition of the illness to combat stigma.


9) The report is in English and shows the impact of ME/CFS not only in terms of symptoms but also on various aspects of life: work, education, finances, social relationships, sex, parenthood, and the choice to (not) have children.
 
Agree with the comments so far. Overall, this report is an improvement compared to the 2020 scientific advisory report from the Superior Health Council of Belgium. The previous report advocated for a biopsychosocial approach, a concept that sounds good until you learn about the psychologisation that it covers for, the harm it causes, and the methodological issues of studies that support it. The patient criticism included at the end of the 2020 report is excellent, especially the criticism by 12ME.

The current report, likely thanks to the involvement of patient associations, does not advocate for the BPS model. However, the report lacks condemnation of the BPS state of practice. They lament there being only a single multidisciplinary reference centre, but this centre is a huge proponent of psychologising nonsense. We do not need more centres like this. From 12ME's criticism on the 2020 report: "Our experience tells us this model is the cause rather than the solution for the shortcomings of our country's ME/CFS policy".

This is what the new report writes about BPS:
In some settings, the biopsychosocial model has been proposed, as for other chronic diseases since it considers the reciprocal influence of biological, psychological, and social factors. However, this has raised concerns among patients. These concerns stem for the perception that the model downplays ongoing biological processes, and place undue emphasis on psychological management.
This is such soft wording. Concern has not only been raised among patients. It is not about a perception of anything, it is about the fact of bad science. BPS researchers commit methodological errors despite these errors being well recognised in scientific literature and despite all the attention these errors have received in psychology's big replication crisis.

From the section about CBT:
CBT aims to improve symptoms and functional capacity by addressing maladaptative behaviours and beliefs that may contribute to fatigue and functional impairment.
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that CBT is associated with improvements in outcomes such as fatigue and physical functioning in individuals with ME/CFS
However, in its 2021 update NICE concluded that the evidence supporting CBT was limited with inconsistent effects across most outcomes. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low to very low quality
They conclude with:
Importantly, CBT does not negate the biological basis of ME/CFS but rather acknowledges the complex interplay between cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and physiological processes

Despite the involvement of patient associations, the report lacks explicit condemnation of BPS bullshit: a missed opportunity. At several points, instead of highlighting facts, the report chooses to make compromises between opinions.
 
Last edited:
Another notable result is that a majority of patients who tried graded exercise therapy reported that it worsened their condition. It had more adverse effects than other treatments including prolonged antibiotic treatment.
Do we have a thread that collates those? There have been easily over a dozen major surveys of this, and without fail they show that GET is the most harmful treatment people try. I know it doesn't make any difference because none of this is about evidence, but maybe one day it might.
 
They conclude with:
Importantly, CBT does not negate the biological basis of ME/CFS but rather acknowledges the complex interplay between cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and physiological processes
I’ve started thinking about statements like these as intellectual abdications and an outright confession of failure.

If you propose or endorse a model of anything that has no limits in the interactions between variables and therefore generates no testable hypotheses, you’ve completely given up.
 
Importantly, CBT does not negate the biological basis of ME/CFS but rather acknowledges the complex interplay between cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and physiological processes
This is rather similar to a statement in the NICE guideline:

1.12.32 Explain that CBT for people with ME/CFS: • aims to improve their quality of life, including functioning, and reduce the distress associated with having a chronic illness • does not assume people have 'abnormal' illness beliefs and behaviours as an underlying cause of their ME/CFS, but recognises that thoughts, feelings, behaviours and physiology interact with each other.

That is, essentially, a biopsychosocial model. It's not the false-illness-beliefs & deconditioning model, but it's nonetheless a biopsychosocial model within the original meaning of that term.
 
Back
Top Bottom