theConversation.com: we've been testing therapy like it's a pill and patients are paying the price

B

bobbler

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
theconversation.com

We’ve been testing therapy like it’s a pill – and some patients are paying the price

Why the NHS keeps offering you the same therapy. And why the science behind that decision is shakier than you think.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

This isn't about ME/CFS and I have placed it here because this is where the IAPT (now 'talking therapies' or something like that) thread is located and because it is implicitly referenced in this and in the fb post a lot of comments mention IAPT

Click to expand...


For those not on fb the only text with the link is:
Why the NHS keeps offering you the same therapy. And why the science behind that decision is shakier than you think.
Click to expand...

But I think it is really worth us having here because it doesn't necessarily exclude ME/CFS and noting other threads some seem to be caught up in this bigger fallacy of 'these things must work' etc.

The author is:
Sahanika Ratnayake
Postdoctoral Researcher, Evidence Synthesis, University of Manchester

And here is where I want to make my point which is that the argument taken is that the issue is that they have been doing randomised controlled trials - I'm pretty sure the standards used in other conditions for CBT 'trials' are little better than what we see as an ongoing treadmill gravy train here. SO someone might want to get in touch with the conversation or the author (and maybe some commenters)....?


PLus also..... please do discuss the article itself and why it has been written too of course! - because I think it might be interesting to see what comes up in this from the perspective of other angles
 
ME/CFS Science Blog said:
Thanks but I think this is a step in the wrong direction. It mainly argues that treatments like CBT shouldn't be tested in randomised controlled trials.
Click to expand...
Precisely what I’m trying to point out. Either it’s a switch and bait or they’ve not spotted the real issue (that the rct shows the wrong thing because it’s not the same as drug trisls)

If it’s the latter then their move to using iapts dsta under the justification they claim what’s been done a rct and are bad - well we’ve seen how gerrymandered that can be. And maybe pointing them here to the roll call of common issues bps perfected might help them (as they realise they are not ‘done like drug trials’ and the issue is the standards and oversight etc)

If it’s the former of course it feels like when eg Pete glad well and others tried to get the go ahead for a PROm being needed by saying the Chalder fatigue scale was bad (but we’re actually mainly using it to replace the physical function measure instead - because that’s the one they couldn’t get results for) in order to argue later that meant having something even more faulty on the same points was ‘a solution to their straw man’

But whichever way the author leans the fb comments are from a lot of professionals not just patients - some of whom might be interested in a follow-up to point this out going by what they write
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom