RCT of online continuing education for health professionals to improve the management of chronic fatigue syndrome: protocol (2017) Lloyd, Barry

Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
This looks annoying and worthless: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e014133

There is also recent evidence that combining CBT and GET may be more effective than CBT alone.6 When applied appropriately the interventions are not associated with harm,4 7 8 and the beneficial effects vary in magnitude from negligible to clinically significant3 4 (This conclusion relates to patients who are able to attend a clinic and may not generalise to more disabled patients). These interventions have also proved generally effective in routine clinical practice.9 In the absence of a clear understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of CFS, or curative treatments, as these are the only evidence-based interventions aimed at managing symptoms and improving function, they should be readily available.10 Yet uptake of evidence-based CFS management programmes delivered by allied health professionals such as psychologists, exercise physiologists and physiotherapists is low.11 12 Recent studies have shown that gaps between research and practice are at least partially due to allied health professionals lacking the knowledge and skills to provide appropriate care,13 14 and potentially also the effects of the controversy regarding the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity, and Cognitive behaviour therapy; a randomised Evaluation) trial analysis.15

For several reasons it is crucial that allied health professionals have the capacity to provide evidence-based CBT and GET interventions to patients with CFS. First, it should be a patient’s right that interventions proven to assist in the management of their symptoms are readily available.
Click to expand...

Wow, they've really taken the time to understand this straw-man of why patients are concerned about the promotion of CBT/GET:

Finally, and very importantly, many health professionals have outdated views on the aetiology of CFS, which can result in the use of inappropriate interventions and hence patient frustration. Rooted in historically dismissive views from some clinicians is a concern of some people with CFS that the advocacy of a psychological intervention, such as CBT, implies that their illness is ‘all in their head’ and not a real disease. Education of clinicians about CFS and the role of CBT is an important step to help address such misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly posting this because it says:

Funding This work is supported by JJ Mason & HS Williams Memorial Foundation (Grant number: MAS2015F040).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this organisation would want to fund worthless research:

https://www.eqt.com.au/~/media/equi...national-medical-program-guidelines.pdf?la=en

I wondered if it could be worth having an Australian contact them about the real reasons people are concerned about the way CBT/GET are promoted? Contact form for those running the trust: http://www.eqt.com.au/contactus

Anyone got any views? Maybe having Cochrane promoting CBT/GET would be a big problem to overcome?
 
Last edited:
Esther12 said:
I'm not sure that this organisation would want to fund worthless research:

https://www.eqt.com.au/~/media/equi...national-medical-program-guidelines.pdf?la=en

I wondered if it could be worth having an Australian contact them about the real reasons people are concerned about the way CBT/GET are promoted? Contact form for those running the trust: http://www.eqt.com.au/contactus
Click to expand...

With the looming collapse of PACE, Lloyd appears to be trying to prop up his taxpayer-funded empire of quackery with dubious research of his own.

As for the Mason Foundation (who funded this rubbish), a lot of Australian patients (and perhaps even some local ME advocacy organisations) contacted them to complain but were brushed off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom