Vincent Deary, "CFS and the facts of life - an article for clinicians"

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
"The problem may well be that some of our [CBT] treatments are too evidence based." :rofl: Of course, that's obviously it.

In part, this article seems to be some sob story about how CBT practitioners are misunderstood and maligned by ungrateful patients.

"It would seem that for some sufferers, the key ingredient of best practice CBT - collaboration - is missing." And guess whose fault that is - yep, it's us patients failing to collaborate with the CBT voodoo doctors that is the reason that it's got such a poor reputation. :banghead:
The following is an article intended primarily for people who are working clinically with sufferers of CFS, however sufferers may also find it useful. It looks at those areas of life, listed below, that are real issues for those with CFS, but that rarely get a mention in the "how to " textbooks...

Introduction

Much has been made of the fact that when badly "administered", Cognitive Behavioural Therapy can be less than helpful in the management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Indeed, despite now very strong evidence (see the recent JAMA review) that CBT is an effective intervention, there was a recent patient conducted survey which showed a high degree of dissatisfaction with implementation of this treatment.

However, we professionals would like to minimise this finding, we cannot ignore the fact that there is a very real problem. It would seem that for some sufferers, the key ingredient of best practice CBT - collaboration - is missing. The experience of this group of dissatisfied customers is that of treatment as rote prescription uniformly administered, a one sided exhortation to do more, exercise, sleep less. Coupled with this is the perception of a lack of empathy for very real pain, distress and disability.

The problem may well be that some of our treatments are too evidence based. Thoroughly convinced as were are by the evidence, we all too easily fall into a repetitive giving of advice, encouraging the patient to do the right, evidence based thing - do more, exercise, sleep less. What this fails to address as an approach, are the very real reasons why a client may be sceptical or anxious; their wariness of yet more professional advice; the complex reasons why the imposition of a routine on their current life feels nigh on impossible.

Advice is only useful if tailored, if presented with an awareness of the context in which it is to be applied. The factors that maintain and perpetuate pain, fatigue and disability are manifold, and each client will have a unique set of factors in play. Depression, loss, over-working, sleep disturbance, high self expectations, exhausting interpersonal strife, litigation, illness, work and family responsibilities, poverty, hopelessness-the list is of course endless. But unless we have some awareness of the client's life experience, we cannot, but in the most straightforward cases, proceed to give advice.

Evidence based practice is not enough - our practice must also be based in empathy, understanding, alliance and respect. Although there are no shortcuts to achieving these, an awareness of some of the recurrent issues and the unique nuances of practice involved in working with CFS may aid the practitioner in better understanding and working with these clients.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/pm/research/cfs/health/index.aspx
 
You beat me to it @Andy. I was just about to post this. It's dire. Can you add not a recommendation to the title, so readers don't explode!

I got as far as this paragraph...

The problem may well be that some of our treatments are too evidence based. Thoroughly convinced as were are by the evidence, we all too easily fall into a repetitive giving of advice, encouraging the patient to do the right, evidence based thing - do more, exercise, sleep less. What this fails to address as an approach, are the very real reasons why a client may be sceptical or anxious; their wariness of yet more professional advice; the complex reasons why the imposition of a routine on their current life feels nigh on impossible.

How dare he?
 
For readers with a strong stomach, there's also Trudie Chalder's pearls of wisdom.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/about/difference/22-CBT-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.aspx
It includes the usual lies about our beliefs and lack of activity perpetuating our illness, and finishes with this boast:
Our researchers were involved in the landmark PACE trial, which showed that CBT and GET for CFS were more effective and more cost-effective than adaptive pacing therapy – where people balance rest with activity – or specialist medical treatment. One year, after a course of CBT or GET, a fifth of people had recovered and were able to partake in life without significant fatigue.

The PACE trial used the ‘Chalder Fatigue Scale’, first created in 1993 to measure physical and mental tiredness. The 11-question form is used in both research studies and specialist clinics all over the country to monitor people’s progress and assess how effective the treatment is.
 
Their "evidence based" approach appears to have completely overlooked that the actual evidence (not in quotes) in the real world (i.e. not in poorly constructed, heavily biased and quite frankly, IMO, fraudulent studies) strongly suggests that they are wrong, and that demanding, by means of coercive CBT, that ME patients exercise, in a manner dictated by GET, when one of the core symptoms of ME is exertion intolerance, is totally batshit crazy.
 
Proposed subtitle: How to Paternalistically Manipulate Your Patients for Their Own Good
Until we know who we are talking to, we should refrain from advice, however well intentioned. As a therapist, my first question is to ask what physical symptoms have brought them to me. I do not enter into debate about whether these symptoms are real or not. Patently they are real, and by showing my interest and belief, I circumvent the need for them to prove themselves as ill to me. Thus we get to hear the real story.

Through their own experience, every client will be managing as well as they currently can. In suggesting that they manage things differently, we are in danger of implying they are not managing well enough. Rather we must position ourselves alongside the client. As an ally, aware of the stresses and strains of their life, we can support the client in dealing with them.

Framed thus, our new suggestions are not contradictions, but additional strategies, worked out with the client, new ways of helping them deal with whatever they have to deal with. This therapeutic alliance can only be built on trust and understanding, and our first few sessions should be directed to building this, not blanket prescription. We must listen.

I recently suggested to a client, whose main demands were looking after her mother and her pets, that she add a five minute walk to her routine. She seemed hesitant, worried. Exploring this it became clear that for her a five minute walk was energy wasted, could potentially compromise her ability to look after her dependents. Ultimately my five minute walk was for her a vision of herself as bedridden, her mother in a home and the animals taken away. Only by careful exploration of these fears, and real negotiated, achievable goals could this client move on. I may think I know that a five minute walk will do her good, she doesn't.

Many clients have built up an infrastructure of support, a coping network, to help them manage their illness. One of my clients had, over the years, established a rota of friends and volunteers, who visited two or three times daily to help her with meals, washing, housework etc. Mostly she was in a wheelchair, and walked only with crutches. She wore a neck-collar to support her head. For her, the road to recovery involved the gradual dropping of each one of these props. To put it in her words, she had to "wean herself of" her network of support, her chair, her crutches, her collar.

Of course this is an extreme case, but it alerts us to another factor we easily miss out of our fatigue equation. Unless clients feel they can trust us, and unless we explore, without prying, their network of relationships, their interpersonal styles, we will miss vital information. A famous seventies self help book was entitled "Women who love too much", and however cliched the concept may seem, being stuck in a relationship where the support is unreciprocal has real physical effects. Of course this applies to men too.

Empathy is not enough. It is all well and good to say, oh you poor thing, but as long as we remain there, we are only encouraging them to be victims of their circumstance. Empowering them to make changes, not in necessarily leaving their relationships, but in changing their own behaviour and expectations within it, is the only way that change will happen. Ideally we are also working with their families or partners, with those others who have become involved, seeing them all through the unsettling process of change.

I'm appalled that a university is publishing this abusive, denialist, & unscientific bullshit on their website.
 
A famous seventies self help book was entitled "Women who love too much", and however cliched the concept may seem, being stuck in a relationship where the support is unreciprocal has real physical effects. Of course this applies to men too.
My mother's going to be relieved when I tell her it's not all her fault it's my husband's.

edit - typo
 
Last edited:
When was this written? Can anyone be so dumb as to write this in 2017-18?

If I twittered:

Dear Dr Deary,
You really do seemed to have missed the point. The 'evidence base' for CBT is valueless, as is now well documented. It is not the lack of empathy the patients are concerned about, it is the complete lack of understanding of either human nature or scientific method that worries them. The homeopaths at least do not make people feel small.

Best wishes
Jo Edwards
UCL
 
I hope that one of these days, one of them is going to be confronted by a knowledgable speaker about their terrible methodology in front of a running camera, in a setting where critical thought and dissent is permitted.
I think that happened with David Tuller asking a question of Esther Crawley, so we already know the outcome: security personnel are summoned to remove the knowledgeable speaker :-P
 
It may be old, but the point is, Kings College still have it on their website as advice to therapists. I find it patronising, unscientific and shows no understanding of what ME/CFS is. He seems to be talking about people with personal problems and stress, not sick people.
 
It's old-ish. Pretty sure it's from before 2011, but I don't know when it first appeared.

I think it's pretty old too. However, the fact that it's still up there indicates that they believe the information for is still current.

That or they are not keeping their web site updated - which seems unlikely.

Eta - crossed post with @Trish . She types quick!
 
Last edited:
It includes the usual lies about our beliefs and lack of activity perpetuating our illness
How come they never come along anyone with ME that does some low-level exercise (which obviously doesn't help)? One reason might be they don't exercise themselves or ignore all those who exercise? Is it maybe them with the exercise phobia?

Really... :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom