Miriam Mallet1, Eleanor King1, Peter D White2. 1. Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 2. Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: p.d.white@qmul.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a controversial illness, with apparent disagreements between medical authorities and patient support organisations regarding safe and effective treatments. The aim of this study was to measure the extent of different views regarding treatments, comparing patient support organisations and medical authorities in the UK. METHODS: Two independent raters analysed two groups of resources: UK patient support websites and both medical websites and textbooks. A 5-point Likert scale was developed with the question 'With what strength does the source recommend these treatments?' The various treatments were divided into the following four groups: complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), pharmacological, rehabilitative, and pacing therapies. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the scores for patient support organisations and medical sources for all 4 treatment groups. The results for supporting CAM were 74% (patient group) vs 16% (medical source) (p<0.001), 71% vs 42% for pharmacological (p=0.01), 28% vs 94% for rehabilitative (p<0.001) and 91% vs 50% for pacing treatments (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantially different treatment recommendations between patient support organisations and medical sources. Since expectations can determine response to treatment, these different views may reduce the engagement in and effectiveness of rehabilitative therapies recommended by national guidelines and supported by systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVES:Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a controversial illness, with apparent disagreements between medical authorities and patient support organisations regarding safe and effective treatments. The aim of this study was to measure the extent of different views regarding treatments, comparing patient support organisations and medical authorities in the UK. METHODS: Two independent raters analysed two groups of resources: UK patient support websites and both medical websites and textbooks. A 5-point Likert scale was developed with the question 'With what strength does the source recommend these treatments?' The various treatments were divided into the following four groups: complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), pharmacological, rehabilitative, and pacing therapies. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the scores for patient support organisations and medical sources for all 4 treatment groups. The results for supporting CAM were 74% (patient group) vs 16% (medical source) (p<0.001), 71% vs 42% for pharmacological (p=0.01), 28% vs 94% for rehabilitative (p<0.001) and 91% vs 50% for pacing treatments (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantially different treatment recommendations between patient support organisations and medical sources. Since expectations can determine response to treatment, these different views may reduce the engagement in and effectiveness of rehabilitative therapies recommended by national guidelines and supported by systematic reviews.
Authors: Jessica Broughton; Sarah Harris; Lucy Beasant; Esther Crawley; Simon M Collin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 2.655