Narratives of recovery from persistent fatigue: a stepwise learning process 2026 Linnros et al

[Andy]

Abstract​

Background: Persistent fatigue is a transdiagnostic symptom that is present in many different medical conditions and diagnoses and is a common reason for seeking health care. Despite a lack of consensus on how to understand and treat persistent fatigue, a subset of patients recover. The experiences of patients who recovered from persistent fatigue have important implications for future research and rehabilitation interventions.

Purpose: This study aimed to further improve the understanding of the recovery process for people who have improved function and regained health following three health conditions characterized by persistent fatigue (CFS/ME, Post Covid-19 Condition and Exhaustion Disorder), and to develop a comprehensive model of the recovery process.

Methods: Fourteen former patients shared their stories about their recovery during videotaped interviews. Narrative analysis was used to explore participants' experiences of the recovery process, focusing on decisive events.

Results: Recovering from persistent fatigue could be understood as a nonlinear stepwise learning process with a marked turning point. This turning point involved finding hope and a new understanding of their fatigue condition, which in turn provided the patient with guidance on what measures to take.

Discussion: We discuss the results in relation to previous research as well as their clinical implications. A new understanding of the symptoms seems to be central to recovery from persistent fatigue, but it is not sufficient in itself. Health care needs to provide explanatory models that fuel hope and agency, as well as individualized interventions, to enable the recovery process.

PubMed abstract : Journal link (not working at time of posting)

 

[Trish]

Authors:

Narratives of recovery from persistent fatigue: a stepwise learning process​

Hannah Linnros Anna Andreasson Anna-Karin Norlin Lars-Christer Hydén

Affiliations​

• 1Clinical Department of Pain and Rehabilitation, Region Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden.
• 2Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
• 3Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
• 4Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
• 5Department of Culture & Society, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden.

 

[Turtle]

Just 14 participant's recovery stories, 3 diseases, one not even spelled right, possisbly natural recoveries.

Auhors want to make that into explanatories models to fuel hope and agency.

 

[Casterofspells]

Abstract​

Background: Persistent fatigue is a transdiagnostic symptom that is present in many different medical conditions and diagnoses and is a common reason for seeking health care. Despite a lack of consensus on how to understand and treat persistent fatigue, a subset of patients recover. The experiences of patients who recovered from persistent fatigue have important implications for future research and rehabilitation interventions.

Purpose: This study aimed to further improve the understanding of the recovery process for people who have improved function and regained health following three health conditions characterized by persistent fatigue (CFS/ME, Post Covid-19 Condition and Exhaustion Disorder), and to develop a comprehensive model of the recovery process.

Methods: Fourteen former patients shared their stories about their recovery during videotaped interviews. Narrative analysis was used to explore participants' experiences of the recovery process, focusing on decisive events.

Results: Recovering from persistent fatigue could be understood as a nonlinear stepwise learning process with a marked turning point. This turning point involved finding hope and a new understanding of their fatigue condition, which in turn provided the patient with guidance on what measures to take.

Discussion: We discuss the results in relation to previous research as well as their clinical implications. A new understanding of the symptoms seems to be central to recovery from persistent fatigue, but it is not sufficient in itself. Health care needs to provide explanatory models that fuel hope and agency, as well as individualized interventions, to enable the recovery process.

PubMed abstract : Journal link (not working at time of posting)

And the CFS/ME name red flag predicted right again. This is pretty damn pointless especially with this sample size and quality.

 

[Dolphin]

Open access here

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02813432.2026.2637743

 

[rvallee]

Recovering from persistent fatigue could be understood as a nonlinear stepwise learning process with a marked turning point

That's just weird, man. Like, super weird. You could conceive anything like anything if you really want, but this is straight up nonsense. What the hell is wrong with people? This is exactly as ridiculous as Scientology. They have their Thetan-detecting machines and their Thetan-purging, uh, learning process, I guess, and you have your, uh, bad-thoughts-chasing learning process, I guess. It's totally different, though, because, see, in Scientology the bad thoughts are actually Thetans, the ghosts of dead, tortured aliens, so it's totally not the same.

What's extra weird about this pseudoscience is that if you agree with their premise, then bodies don't recover from anything biologically, it has to happen through a psychological process. A biological process of recovery explains all of this, it's even literally expected to occur, but for this weird ideology they have to pretend like it's not happening, they have to invent an alternative reality in which biology literally does not matter without being directed by some magical thoughts and behaviors, even has to be coached by someone with superior Thetan-purging skills, or whatever.

It's all so damn childish. Might as well have Santa-based medicine.

And, oh boy, this is the first sentence, and it's wrong:

The term fatigue is used in medical settings to describe tiredness that is not alleviated by rest

Medical fatigue is not tiredness. Good grief what do those people learn and where and how and why?!

To date, very little research has been conducted on recovery from persistent fatigue

This is both correct and also blatantly false. Plenty has been done, but it's mostly junk "narratives" like this, hence the complete lack of any progress. But in fatigue this has been the singular focus since anyone of the authors were even born.

To date, only a few studies have focused on personal recovery within fatigue recovery research, and there are no systematic reviews

Also both correct and wrong. Far too many "systematic reviews" have been published on this, but none of them are systematic, they only ever pick a few studies, and calling them reviews is stretching the definition. But it fits that to promote an ideology detached from reality, they have to play along with the fake reality they invented, one where this has not been researched yet, but it's also based on decades of evidence.

Actually, when you read through the quotes, they don't even support the conclusions the authors started with. Not at all. It's clear that it's just time that did the work, and that meanwhile they simply adjusted, which has long been obvious. One problem too many people seem to have is that if they have a mirror put to their face, so they can self-reflect, instead all they do is admire their own image and make it the center of the whole universe.

 

[Kalliope]

Linköping University has an article about the study:

New insights aided recovery from persistent fatigue

quote:

An important turning point came when they found a helpful explanation for their symptoms that integrated psychological and bodily processes. This reduced their fear of fatigue in particular, and gave them hope that they could feel well again. Based on the new understanding, they then began to try out and evaluate different things that helped them regain function and began to feel better. They had tried a variety of experiences that could affect how the body reacts and contributes to better balance in the nervous system, such as yoga, meditations, breathing exercises and other bodily techniques. Several of them had followed private treatment programmes online.

At the end of their recovery process, the interviewees shifted their focus towards living meaningful lives even though some symptoms remained.
The researchers believe that healthcare needs to be open to newer models of explanation for severe fatigue and other long-term symptoms, where knowledge about the brain and other bodily processes is integrated.

New insights aided recovery from persistent fatigue

Researchers have identified common steps and turning points in stories of patients who have recovered from diagnoses characterised by persistent fatigue. The findings can contribute to new ways of understanding and rehabilitating these conditions.

liu.se

 

[bobbler]

It's just the utter cruelty of this thinking that gets me.

Can you imagine a cancer where just a small % recover and instead of focusing on that being the stat as to how successful the treatment was doing a 'go fishing' for your own ideology only with those who recovered - so not checking if those who didn't ate the same healthy food and had the same healthy attitude and did the raindance they required and for all they know the % of those who did that and recovered was smaller than in the 'eat junk and get angry' approach.

And then bigoting those who were just the unlucky ones basically to not just rub it in but cast aspersions on them and incite others to think that. And not even be honest enough to admit it isn't good intentions if you won't follow-up long-term to check this isn't true and therefore isn't really kind or nice. Noone can read the history of all this and the non-results they got and what it caused to patients for decades and think it is going to end well for patients. Not if they are being honest.

So I'd like a piece of research putting those who do this sort of thing on the spot and asking them why they really do this. What's going wrong in their thinking process or attitude to be so callously indifferent to that. Is pretending it is help just a cover. ie how can such people go so wrong with what they think is OK and humane etc

It isn't like they are even asking those who recovered what it looks like in practical terms in order that someone who is a patient could spot if when they feel a bit better whether they are indeed one of the lucky ones 'because it felt like x' or was just one of those fake 'seeming good days' or not even good but just about pushing the envelope and surviving with eg a new job until that kicks you in the butt later with a deterioration.

So you know they can actually understand that those who get well tend to feel a lot better than those who don't before they 'increment' and not because they do and that mindset is probably exactly the same normal distribution and BS.

This is just disability bigotry to me written out as a historical documentation of 'how those cuddling it justify it as not realising that's what it is to themselves cos they used special words' as soon as they (which I suspect might have been before the design) decided it was about 'what those disabled who won't recover might learn from' and not really about being interested in what even those who eventually were fortunate to recover actually went through still [so imagine what it is like when you don't].

Shouldn't the least bad lesson to be taken from the recovered is for those who have never been unfortunate enough to suffer to be respectful (as they might have had a dreadful number of years whilst being ill), and if they feel like they got their life back I'd guess to tell others to feel thankful for what they have etc. WHo on earth would aim to gather them up to get some soundbites in order to 'teach a lesson to those who are likely not going to have that prognosis to be more like Dave in your attitude'

 

[V.R.T.]

Can you imagine a cancer where just a small % recover and instead of focusing on that being the stat as to how successful the treatment was doing a 'go fishing' for your own ideology only with those who recovered

There was a researcher at Kings College London who made his name on just this sort of thing - Hans Eyesik, something like that. Was later found to have committed fraud in his papers.

All sort of 'a certain type of person gets/dies from cancer' - negative people, anxious people etc.

 

[bobbler]

- it isn't even 'false hope' (plain misleading people to do something that doesn't work/toxic optimism/coerced positivity), nevermind hope, but very much intended as a twisted using of that word to weaponise it by using it to disguise something else to do with 'compliance and saying mantras of their beliefs' with a problem wrong mindset of 'if the 5% recover without treatment then you guys should be trying to emulate these few people who I claim did recover and said they did this [replacing the plain 'do what I say, there is no evidence for it'], even if that's nothing to do with why they recovered and ruin the rest of what you've got left from the illness explaining yourself to us why you aren't as you must be doing things wrong if you aren't'.

I could spit my tea out at the distorted meaning intended of the word 'agency' they 'intend to give patients' as it clearly seem back-hand for 'responsibility for getting yourself up and dressed' (behavioural psychology ie punishment and reward carrot/stick even for those who are too sick to do that and certainly too ill to do so without making themselves iller long term and missing out on other more important things they needed to do) ...rather than 'autonomy' version of meaning of that word [agency: "empowering them with the freedom, authority, and trust to make their own decisions and act independently"] certainly in being able to exist/be/choose/be heard and have their freedom and other rights and feel safe whilst actually telling the truth as to how they really thought or felt. Talk about narrative manipulation.

Do we even know how objectively 'well' these people are and how much 'perceived threat' they might have been under regarding giving these answers knowing probably quite clearly that there were people-pleasing answers. Which is just such a violation of all sorts, but particularly to someone deeply in who they are and their own story being twiddled with it is very intimate as an act - I think that I don't understand why this issue isn't underlined and dealt with as a particular issue for anyone who has been coralled into research or treatment under anyone who either is or is connected to those who have powers to detain or write things in records that could impact things people need to survive etc.

 

[bobbler]

There was a researcher at Kings College London who made his name on just this sort of thing - Hans Eyesik, something like that. Was later found to have committed fraud in his papers.

All sort of 'a certain type of person gets/dies from cancer' - negative people, anxious people etc.

Eysenck - indeed.

From AI at top of search citing hanseysnck.com: "Cancer-prone personality. this specific profile focuses on emotional suppression and submissiveness, sometimes termed a "Type C" or cancer-prone personality. Often described as stoic, helpless, hopeless, or having difficulty expressing emotions, particularly anger. "

"These individuals tend to repress emotions, which is believed to accumulate stress that may impact immune function. The theory suggests that the inability to cope with stress (rather than just experiencing it) affects the immune system, potentially influencing cancer progression." - Which sounds a bit eerily familiar to certain recent therapy docs and their ideology to me.

This sort of thing needs to be outed as propaganda trying to dress itself up as if it is 'backed by research' and 'trying to help' by garnishing it with the garnering of a few still vulnerable but supposed 'recovered' (or supposedly so, as who knows what conditions they were under when answering these things - if you 'have to be recovered' to get off a ward that is making you do things that make you worse then you eventually learn that the only way you get more safe is to say what is required, but even those who aren't and maybe are a bit better but have wrecked lives are vulnerable either this way because things still depend on not having black marks, or the other way because a career option that is doable with the still not fully well body they have suddenly becomes on offer but is dependent on 'being the face of recovery' and keeping those giving those opportunities sweet etc. Mostly people learn that noone is going to be kind or help no matter how ill you are so a pat on the back for saying you feel better when having been through such horror social training feels like a lot more than those who haven't imagine it would if you don't see through it, and avoiding the fall-out associated with not being 'compliant' that could well happen is about the only 'choice' many have).

into inferences taken from what people actually said but focusing only on a narrow aspect intended as supposed 'inspiration porn' for healthy people to assume that those who don't say they've recovered should learn from

 

[V.R.T.]

Eysenck - indeed.





This sort of thing needs to be outed as propaganda trying to dress itself up as if it is 'backed by research' and 'trying to help' by garnishing it with the garnering of a few supposed still vulnerable 'recovered' (or supposedly so, and who knows what conditions they were under when answering these things - if you 'have to be recovered' to get off a ward that is making you do things that make you worse then you eventually learn that the only way you get more safe is to say what is required, but even those who aren't and maybe are a bit better but have wrecked lives are vulnerable either this way because things still depend on not having black marks, or the other way because a career option that is doable with the still not fully well body they have suddenly becomes on offer but is dependent on 'being the face of recovery' and keeping those giving those opportunities sweet etc. Mostly people learn that noone is going to be kind or help no matter how ill you are so a pat on the back for saying you feel better when having been through such horror social training feels like a lot more than those who haven't imagine it would if you don't see through it, and avoiding the fall-out associated with not being 'compliant' that could well happen is about the only 'choice' many have).

into inferences taken from what people actually said but focusing only on a narrow aspect intended as supposed 'inspiration porn' for healthy people to assume that those who don't say they've recovered should learn from

I actually think that drawing comparisons between Eysenck and the work of the MECFS psychobehaviouralists might be a good way of highlighting how empty and fraudulent it is.

 

[Sean]

Wessely defended Eysneck. Just saying.

The entire purpose of this stuff is to create a psychosocial environment where patients do not feel safe in reporting symptoms or their degree. Which is more than a little ironic.

It is a particularly insidious and cowardly form of intimidation and suppression.