Norwegian guidelines in development: help with a literature search

Key findings across interventions show that:

* Many valued a holistic approach addressing both physical and psychological aspects and sought recognition of long-term fatigue as a chronic illness.
* Family involvement provided support and security, with many wanting relatives to receive more information.
* Group therapies offered support and understanding, though large groups sometimes hindered sharing of experiences.
* Tailored and realistic information improved patients’ understanding and coping.
* Practical tools and coping strategies were seen as useful.
* Symptoms, time constraints and life circumstances made it difficult to apply new skills
* The therapist's knowledge, empathy, and relational skills were crucial for positive experiences.
* Combining treatment methods was appreciated but sometimes experienced as challenging.
Almost all of this is nonsense. Patients obviously did not report those 'themes', this is a managed discussion that focused on what the providers are doing, is generic nonsense, or simply reframes what patients say in a useless way. Entirely useless and deceitful.
 
They have invited themselves previously and I think asked to be kept in the loop even if they at that point got turned down, so I don't think it's difficult to see how they got an invite and someone else not. The team at Haukeland is, as far as I know, not talking about treatments and "helping patients" in the same way so not as much help for the guideline team? Although I do wish they would speak up against what is going on because "this doesn't work" needs to be said (repeatedly).
 
ME Parents (ME Foreldrene) have assessed the sources OCFC used in their meeting. In my opinion, it’s pretty embarrassing.
Summary
OCFN's presentation to the Norwegian Directorate of Health is largely based on selective and weak documentation. Several references are used without context or professional precision, and claims are made that undermine internationally recognized knowledge about ME and Long Covid with PEM. This contributes to professional misinformation and can potentially have serious consequences for the development of guidelines and patient care if read uncritically.
https://www.me-foreldrene.no/referanser-brukt-av-oslo-chronic-fatigue-network-ocfn
There is a button to translate the page at the top right.
 
Another problematic part of how this guideline is supposed to work, is that for "other conditions" with fatigue, treating the fatigue will be included in that condition's own guideline. Whereas for us, we will be part of a "fatigue" guideline. This cements the view of Wyller and co that fatigue is a spectrum with ME being the extreme case.
 
The directorate of health has replied to an opinion piece voicing concerns on how biomedical research groups have not been present at meeting rounds (vs heavy involvement from BPS researchers and organizations)

Ny retningslinje for langvarig utmattelse, inkludert CFS/ME, vil bygge på bred forskning og representasjon
New guideline for chronic fatigue, including CFS/ME, will build on broad research and representation

I think they miss the mark in trying to "console" people's fears. As explained by a reply to the directorate by a severe ME patient:
ME is something completely different than prolonged fatigue
 
The directorate of health has replied to an opinion piece voicing concerns on how biomedical research groups have not been present at meeting rounds (vs heavy involvement from BPS researchers and organizations)

Ny retningslinje for langvarig utmattelse, inkludert CFS/ME, vil bygge på bred forskning og representasjon
New guideline for chronic fatigue, including CFS/ME, will build on broad research and representation

I think they miss the mark in trying to "console" people's fears. As explained by a reply to the directorate by a severe ME patient:
ME is something completely different than prolonged fatigue
I completely agree with Eirik here. We don’t need «balance», we need scientific rigour.
 
The directorate of health has replied to an opinion piece voicing concerns on how biomedical research groups have not been present at meeting rounds (vs heavy involvement from BPS researchers and organizations)

Ny retningslinje for langvarig utmattelse, inkludert CFS/ME, vil bygge på bred forskning og representasjon
New guideline for chronic fatigue, including CFS/ME, will build on broad research and representation

I think they miss the mark in trying to "console" people's fears. As explained by a reply to the directorate by a severe ME patient:
ME is something completely different than prolonged fatigue
In addition to the working group (which is the core of the work) and the communities represented there, it is sometimes appropriate to have a dialogue with and listen to other relevant groups, especially in works where experiences and knowledge differ and are perceived as polarized. In this work, we have therefore so far also had contact with, among others, the Oslo Chronic Fatigue Network, Røysumtunet, CatoSenteret, SINTEF and Fafo.
So, literally the dominant paradigm. While patients, who have been ostracized and discriminated for decades, are still largely unrepresented. That they actually frame going to the same people who have dominated the current destructive paradigm as "reaching out" to other relevant groups is just absurdly dishonest, and says everything about the whole project is corrupt, pure Kabuki theater.
 
So, literally the dominant paradigm. While patients, who have been ostracized and discriminated for decades, are still largely unrepresented. That they actually frame going to the same people who have dominated the current destructive paradigm as "reaching out" to other relevant groups is just absurdly dishonest, and says everything about the whole project is corrupt, pure Kabuki theater.
Røysumtunet is a private hospice (not sure this would be the best term) where sever pwME can have accomodations such as dark and sound proof rooms and personel that know the condition. There are some controversies around them, but as for treatment they are not BPS inclined. FaFo and SINTEF are also not part of the BPS gang over here.
 
Røysumtunet is a private hospice (not sure this would be the best term) where sever pwME can have accomodations such as dark and sound proof rooms and personel that know the condition. There are some controversies around them, but as for treatment they are not BPS inclined. FaFo and SINTEF are also not part of the BPS gang over here.
I think it might have been more of a reference to RN and OCFC being invited, when e.g. Fluge and Mella have not been invited, and they also turned down Søraas (context: leader of a large LC-research project).
 
I think it might have been more of a reference to RN and OCFC being invited, when e.g. Fluge and Mella have not been invited, and they also turned down Søraas (context: leader of a large LC-research project).
Yup. There is not a single valid reason to invite the people pushing the failed paradigm. They had decades to prove themselves, and they proved that it's a complete disaster and that they have nothing whatsoever to contribute.
 
I completely agree with Eirik here. We don’t need «balance», we need scientific rigour.
Yes. That HDIR says they will be rigorous and create guidelines based on "solid" evidence is contradicted by the "balance" part.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Richard Feynman​
 
Back
Top