Tag: CBT critique

Distress signals: Does cognitive behavioural therapy reduce or increase distress in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis?

Abstract:

Reducing the psychological distress associated with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis is seen as a key aim of cognitive behavioural therapy. Although cognitive behavioural therapy is promoted precisely in this manner by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the evidence base on distress reduction from randomised controlled trials is limited, equivocal and poor quality. Crucially, data derived from multiple patient surveys point to worsening and increase distress; however, despite being invited, such data have been dismissed as second class by National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Crucially, the claim by National Institute of Clinical Excellence that cognitive behavioural therapy reduces distress in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis is not only at odds with what patients repeatedly report in surveys, but with their own gold-standard randomised controlled trial and meta-analytic data.

Source: Keth R. Laws. Distress signals: Does cognitive behavioural therapy reduce or increase distress in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis? Journal of Health Psychology.  First Published May 17, 2017. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317710246 (Full article)

Cognitive behavioural therapy in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: A narrative review on efficacy and informed consent

Abstract:

Cognitive behavioural therapy is increasingly promoted as a treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome. There is limited research on informed consent using cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome. We undertook a narrative review to explore efficacy and to identify the salient information that should be disclosed to patients.

We found a complex theoretical model underlying the rationale for psychotherapy in chronic fatigue syndrome. Cognitive behavioural therapy may bring about changes in self-reported fatigue for some patients in the short term, however there is a lack of evidence for long-term benefit or for improving physical function and cognitive behavioural therapy may cause distress if inappropriately prescribed. Therapist effects and placebo effects are important outcome factors.

© The Author(s) 2016.

 

Source: Geraghty KJ, Blease C. Cognitive behavioural therapy in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: A narrative review on efficacy and informed consent. J Health Psychol. 2016 Sep 15. pii: 1359105316667798. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27634687

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: la bête noire of the Belgian health care system

Abstract:

The World Health Organization acknowledges Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) to be a medical illness. ME/CFS is characterized by disorders in the inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress (IO&NS) pathways. In 2002, the Belgian government started with the development of CFS “Reference Centers”, which implement a “psychosocial” model. The medical practices of these CFS Centers are defined by the Superior Health Council, e.g. treatment should be based upon Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET); and biological assessments and treatments of ME/CFS should not be employed.

Recently, the Belgian government has evaluated the outcome of the treatments at the CFS Centers. They concluded that a “rehabilitation therapy” with CBT/GET yielded no significant efficacy in the treatment of ME/CFS and that CBT/GET cannot be considered to be curative therapies.

In case reports, we have shown that patients who were “treated” at those CFS centers with CBT/GET in fact suffered from IO&NS disorders, including intracellular inflammation, an increased translocation of gram-negative enterobacteria (leaky gut), autoimmune reactions and damage by O&NS.

Considering the fact that these findings are exemplary for ME/CFS patients and that GET may even be harmful, it means that many patients are maltreated by the Belgian CFS Centers. Notwithstanding the above, the government and the CFS Centers not only continue this unethical and immoral policy, but also reinforce their use of CBT/GET in patients with ME/CFS treated at those Centers.

 

Source: Maes M, Twisk FN. Chronic fatigue syndrome: la bête noire of the Belgian health care system. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2009;30(3):300-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855351

 

Change in grey matter volume cannot be assumed to be due to cognitive behavioural therapy

Comment on: Can CBT substantially change grey matter volume in chronic fatigue syndrome? [Brain. 2009]

Sir, In their reply to Dr Bramsen, De Lange et al. (2008) use a type of circular reasoning: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), they say, has previously been shown to be ‘effective’ for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) so the change they measured must be due to CBT.

First, it needs to be pointed out that CBT is far from a panacea for CFS. A recent meta-analysis (Malouff et al., 2008) of the efficacy of CBT in treating CFS found an effect size of d = 0.48 (95% CI 0.27–0.69).

In their letter, De Lange et al. (2008) refer to a review by Whiting et al. (2001) as part-evidence for their claim that CBT is effective for CFS. However, this review recommended the use of objective outcome measures e.g.

Outcomes such as ‘improvement,’ in which participants were asked to rate themselves as better or worse than they were before the intervention began, were frequently reported. However, the person may feel better able to cope with daily activities because they have reduced their expectations of what they should achieve, rather than because they have made any recovery as a result of the intervention. A more objective measure of the effect of any intervention would be whether participants have increased their working hours, returned to work or school, or increased their physical activities’.

Given one of the aims of CBT (for CFS) has been said to be ‘increased confidence in exercise and physical activity’ (O’Dowd et al.), we cannot have complete confidence that the improvements recorded in CBT trials thus far represent objective improvements [such as improvements in grey matter volume (GMV)], rather than simply being due to altering how patients answer questionnaires. An INAMI report (2006) on the use of CBT (combined with GET) in over 600 CFS patients in Belgium found that while patients reported improvements on their fatigue scores, there was negligible change on the tests of exercise capacity and there was actually a worsening of their employment status (as measured by the amount of hours worked per week), both at the end of the intervention and at follow-up.

You can read the rest of this comment here: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/132/7/e119.long

 

Source: Kindlon T. Change in grey matter volume cannot be assumed to be due to cognitive behavioural therapy. Brain. 2009 Jul;132(Pt 7):e119; author reply e120. doi: 10.1093/brain/awn358. Epub 2009 Jan 29. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/132/7/e119.long (Full article)