1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 17th January 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

UK: Priority Setting Partnership for ME/CFS

Discussion in 'Advocacy Projects and Campaigns' started by Andy, Mar 10, 2020.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    This being announced/launched today at the CMRC conference, see UK CFS/M.E. Research Collaborative [CMRC] conference, 10th and 11th March 2020 for discussion of that, and given the potential importance of it I thought it would be worth creating this new thread about it.

    From http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind-alliance/about-psps.htm
    Committee statement.
     
    dangermouse, MEMarge, Hutan and 12 others like this.
  2. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    FMMM1, dangermouse, MEMarge and 10 others like this.
  3. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
  4. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,309
    Location:
    UK
  5. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,309
    Location:
    UK
    dangermouse, Hutan, rvallee and 4 others like this.
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,167
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks for flagging up those concerns, @Sly Saint. It is indeed concerning looking at that MS list full of vague stuff about coping and fatigue which gives a green light to funding BPS stuff.

    As we find out more, we will need to try to reduce the influence of any ME BPS people like BACME. Good reason I think for members of the forum to put themselves forward to be on the steering group if and when the opportunity arises.
     
  7. Cinders66

    Cinders66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,186
    I don’t accept we need this type of thing before funding is allocated, I assume nothing will be given until after?


    If this approach ties in with the AFME tweet about urgent need for ring fenced funding it could easily be interpreted as a number of steps conveniently put in at this particular stage to delay that “urgent” funding allocation. Indeed looking as a whole from 2002, MRCs own strategy or “activity” can be seen like the equivalent of effective family planning, ie doing whatever it can to avoid or delay or space out the actual thing MRC seems to want to avoid but patients want, which is research being encouraged and funded.

    There’s a zillion obvious unanswered questions and unreplicatd studies because there hasn’t been enough measures to overcome the massive hurdles to research interest in the U.K., chiefly around education, officially putting out an alternative narrative to the unhelpful BPS one and incentivising research through funding.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  8. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    For interest, from https://www.psp-me.co.uk/faqs/

    What difference will this really make?

    Last September, the JLA published More than a Top 10, reporting on the transformational potential of PSPs. Outcomes can include:

    • enabling patients to expand and enhance involvement in other parts of the research system
    • improving reputations and status of researchers
    • changing clinical practice
    • supporting organisations to develop new partnerships
    • promoting greater collaboration and enhancing patient and public involvement
    • changing relationships between funders and researchers, placing less emphasis on competition and greater emphasis on working together to achieve a common goal.
    Recent successful PSPs include those for mitochondrial disease, safe care for adults with complex health needs, and multiple sclerosis.

    The PSP for asthma culminated in a study funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme against a PSP priority.
     
    Ash, FMMM1, ladycatlover and 4 others like this.
  9. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,167
    Location:
    UK
    Don't forget there is an application in at the moment for a large GWAS. That could be funded before any of this priority setting even gets started and, if funded, would be the biggest funding for a single biomedical ME research project in the UK ever, I think.

    I share your concern that there has not been enough action on getting the right sort of research funded. Surely, now this priority setting exercise has been funded, we need to get behind it to try to ensure future funding goes in the right direction.
     
    FMMM1, Gecko, ladycatlover and 5 others like this.
  10. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Which this PSP would, potentially, help correct?
     
  11. Cinders66

    Cinders66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,186
    They could only do it now after the genome funding thing at last looks like getting done? They have had months of waiting and meetings. If it’s an exercise already done in asthma,

    “The first JLA PSP to announce its Top 10 priorities for future research was in Asthma
    This link shows Holgate himself called for a PSP for asthma in 2004!

    Holgates area, why wait until now to get it done in “CFS” it’s just like everything they always have done , taking and wasting years of our lives. It’s all so linear ..

    Even if It has benefits as they suggest it will be a time delay to any funding and that’s with a genome study we have Over waited years for, which in itself , due to its size has a delay factor of recruiting before it can actually start. At this rate it will be near end of this decade before anything meaningful and sizeable uk gets published and IF the genome study gets funding, it wasn’t a whole decades worth of value so it doesn’t keep me happy .

    AFME love that word eventually. I hate it. I can’t get behind what I perceive as deliberate foot dragging. if you were Simon wessely and new you had to do something biomedical now we have advanced but wanted to stall as long as possible I think that he Would have chosen a very similar approach to past two decades.

    just to remind everyone what the cmo report in 2002 was calling for, as contrast and as a baseline of good practice and what the community was expecting to see:

     
  12. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,195
    So much depends on the specifics - it's easy for things like this to sound good in principle, but end up being shaped by the preferences of those who know how to play the system (which tends not to be patients). If Action for ME are playing a leading role, that leaves me more concerned too.
     
    Ash, ladycatlover, Hutan and 6 others like this.
  13. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,005
    Location:
    Canada
    Perhaps speaking directly to AfME to influence them as advocates would be the place to start ensuring the direction things will go.

    • Being honest about our fears remembering past disappointments in their decisions.
    • Suggesting that this could improve relations if they are clear and transparent about supporting a biological research and practical support approach to further progress and aid to the ME community.
     
  14. ScottTriGuy

    ScottTriGuy Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    693
    A bastardized version of the James Lind Alliance process was used by Mary-Ann Fitzcharles to the detriment of Canadians with FM.

    The Canadian Journal of Pain published Manfred Hath's critique:

    "The current issue of this journal includes a paper by Fitzcharles et al., who used the JLA methodology to explore the indications for potential research in the treatment of fibromyalgia...

    The article by Fitzcharles et al. illustrates the difficulties in reaching a useful and clear agreement between patients and health care professionals for a treatment research agenda. The work, the time, and the number of people involved in this project were considerable, but the validity and originality of the results presented appear questionable. The main problems are listed below..."

    https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/PFT/1/DI2b8?_s=2CvJBnifrEZUn3AADQP+1uetEzk=
     
    Milo, ladycatlover, Hutan and 7 others like this.
  15. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    15min video from CMRC conference today.
    Code:
    https://youtu.be/S7-7-mWgCMc
     
    Trish, Hutan, Esther12 and 1 other person like this.
  16. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,614
    Location:
    Australia
    @ScottTriGuy, that link doesn't work for me. Is there another way to get to the information - it sounds useful.
     
    MEMarge, ScottTriGuy and Andy like this.
  17. Andy

    Andy Committee Member (& Outreach when energy allows)

    Messages:
    15,199
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Looks like this is the same paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24740527.2017.1378568
     
    ScottTriGuy, Trish and Hutan like this.
  18. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,614
    Location:
    Australia
    In our case, caregivers would be acceptable responders in order to help ensure the needs of children and of the very severely affected are represented. I guess there would need to be questions about the severity of the illness, in order to ensure the people across the spectrum of illness severity were represented. And also questions about age of onset and current age so as to ensure that adequate weight was given to the issues of young people.

    Good geographic coverage is important, but I think it's more important that there is plenty of representation from outside of the NIH NHS clinics. During the first couple of years of the illness, it's hard to know what is going on and who to believe. I think responses are more likely to be from people actually with ME/CFS and more likely to be focused on biomedical issues if patient respondents are required to have had the illness for two years or more. That's short enough to still remember the difficulties of diagnosis but long enough to begin to understand that thinking positively and exercising isn't going to fix the problem.

    Regarding clinician respondents - that will be a bit of a nightmare in the UK. It's likely that there would be a whole lot of responses from NIH NHS clinic staff providing BPS/BACME inspired care, with perhaps many of them keen to understand how to make CBT/GET more effective and keen to blame the patients for being too perfectionist or neurotic, or too 'boom-and-bust' or giving up too easily or whatever, in order to explain why the treatments don't work. I think the process would have to anticipate that. Perhaps responses from clinicians would need to be separated into 1. those from staff of NIH NHS clinics or otherwise ascribing to BPS ideology and 2. those from others, when reporting clinician research priorities.

    Assuming a process that ascribes the same weight to every clinician response, that could produce a very poor outcome in a situation where the majority of patients believe that the majority of clinicians have no good understanding of the medical condition under consideration.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  19. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,167
    Location:
    UK
    I have just watched the video and am concerned. The James Lind alliance is embedded in the UK National Institute of Health Research.

    The speaker kept talking about 3 groups being involved in the consultation process: patients, carers and health care professionals, mentioning that these latter need to be in current practice seeing patients. There was no mention of scientists. This is all about research into patient care, not about biomedical research, as far as I can see.

    And given that they say they give equal weight to each of these 3 groups, that means they will be listening to NHS therapists and doctors as much as to patients, which makes my heart sink. It looks inenvitable that the BACME lot will have a large influence. I can't see any way around that.
     
    Ash, MEMarge, JemPD and 11 others like this.
  20. Invisible Woman

    Invisible Woman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,284
    It does rather seem that we're back to the fundamental problem - those deemed to be experts are those running clinics - bad and not so bad clinics -a large number of those don't believe that patients can be harmed by the treatments they offer and don't bother to look or check for harms.

    As patients disappear off their books - either through temporary remission or because they're no longer helping or the patient becomes too ill for further engagement - they assume the patient to be "recovered" and they have been successful.

    Until they recognize this issue then they are scattering seeds on tainted ground. Nothing good can come from that.
     
    Ash, MEMarge, JemPD and 7 others like this.

Share This Page