Research in Norway involving Chalder

[Sly Saint]

I didn't want to post this as a research paper as it isn't on ME or any related condition. The concern is more Chalders influence in Norway.
this is the paper:

Testing two digital stress-management interventions in a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer patients - Scientific Reports

The digital stress-management intervention StressProffen has been shown to be associated with improved well-being and quality of life for cancer survivors. In the Coping After Breast Cancer (CABC) trial, effects of 6 months’ access to modified versions of StressProffen, delivered through a...

www.nature.com

but it is worth noting from the abstract
"After 6 months of access, the CBI and MBI stress-management interventions did not yield significantly improved outcomes for women with breast cancer compared with usual-care controls."

and

"TC is Co-chief investigator on a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) program grant in the UK testing a modified acceptance and commitment therapy intervention to improve quality of life for people with a range of cancers in the posttreatment phase. "

 

[Utsikt]

Ursin and Eriksen developed the Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress in 2004 (one of the bedrocks of Wyller’s theories). Ursin and the lead author Svendsen work at NIPH, the home of e.g. Larun, Rørtveit and Flottorp.

NIPH is a BPS hotspot and they are responsible for our current covid strategy (do nothing and restrict vaccinations) that has caused an excess mortality in Norway post-covid that exceeds the total deaths directly from WWII, including extermination camps.

I wouldn’t be too worried about Chalder. The Norwegians are able to mess this up by themselves..

 

[Utsikt]

The discussion section only consists of the authors refusing to acknowledge that their trial produced null results. They list numerous explanations for why the treatment might actually work, they were just not able to show it. The denial is very real..

 

[Liie]

There was also a lower frequency of app use in the CABC trial compared to the original StressProffen trial(s), with participants using the apps a median of 7 times (range 1–144) in this study

7 times in 6 months?!

 

[rvallee]

What a pointless waste of everything. This entire industry is a waste. Here they 'tested' this particular program. They concluded that they need to do it again. They will do it again. They can test another program. And another. Or another one yet. And a modified version of one. And a combined version of two. And they can find endless combinations of reasons to do it again. They can test a brief version of it. Or a long version. Or whatever.

The paper begins with:

The digital stress-management intervention StressProffen has been shown to be associated with improved well-being and quality of life for cancer survivors.

So they've already decided that the digital version works. Even wikipedia would require a citation on that. Not in a Nature peer-reviewed paper, though. No need for that. You can simply assert things without evidence. And they tested a modified version of it.

In the Coping After Breast Cancer (CABC) trial, effects of 6 months’ access to modified versions of StressProffen, delivered through a digital download-only model, were examined.

What should be different about breast cancer than other cancers? Nothing, of course. On what do they base the asserted fact that it's 'associated' with whatever? Doesn't even matter. Nothing matters in this ideology.

They don't even bother putting together coherent reasons for why it failed:

In the CABC trial, women with breast cancer receiving either a digital stress-management intervention with cognitive behavioral or mindfulness-based content did not show significantly greater improvements in perceived stress, anxiety, depression, fatigue, HRQoL, mindfulness, coping, or sleep after 6 months of intervention access compared to usual-care controls. Perceived stress at baseline was however low in all groups, which may have impacted the outcome. This was a digital download-only intervention trial, and further research is needed to determine the best way to deliver digital health interventions to facilitate use and subsequent intended effect. Timing of delivery during the cancer trajectory to achieve impact, types of stress-management interventions, and what works best for whom and when, should also be explored.

Similar to when one of Wyller's (IIRC) studies of something similar to GET failed, they argued that the participants were active enough to begin with and it's probably why it failed, because the whole intervention was to be active enough not to be deconditioned. They gave bullshit reasons to do a handful of trials, figuring out the various combinations of those things. None of those things matter at all, but they can go and on and anyway.

The ideology can never fail, it can only be failed. And there's always money for it. Somehow. Medicine was enshittifying long before everything else, and this is the peak of it.