Unity of opposites? Chronic fatigue syndrome and the challenge of divergent perspectives in guideline development

Smith, Charlotte; Wessely, Simon

doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-303208

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considerable debate has transpired regarding whether ME/CFS and CFS represent different illnesses, [21] as well as whether the criteria that designate these illnesses select different types of patients. [3,13,14] Different names (ME, CFS, and ME/CFS) and criteria [1,2,8,12,15,22,23] have been used to characterize the illness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting chronic fatigue syndrome versus myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Jason

Brown

Evans

et al. 2013

Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Much debate is transpiring regarding whether chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) are different illnesses. Several prior studies that compared the Fukuda et al. CFS criteria to the Canadian ME/CFS criteria found that the Canadian criteria identified patients with more functional impairments and greater physical, mental, and cognitive problems than those who met Fukuda et al. criteria.[3,4] These samples were located in the Chicago metropolitan area, so the results could not be generalized to other locations. In addition, past studies used a symptom questionnaire that was not specifically developed to tap the Canadian criteria. Purpose The present comparative study of CFS and ME/CFS criteria was intended to correct the methodological problems of prior studies. Methods This article used data from three distinct samples to compare patients who met criteria for the ME/CFS Canadian clinical case definition [1] to those who met the Fukuda et al. CFS case definition.[2] Results Findings indicated that fewer individuals met the Canadian criteria than the Fukuda et al. criteria. Those who met the Canadian criteria evidenced more severe symptoms and physical functioning impairment Conclusions Future research should continue to compare existing case definitions and determine which criteria best select for this illness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting chronic fatigue syndrome versus myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Jason

Brown

Evans

et al. 2013

Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the psychiatric profession has portrayed ME activists as blocking progress by campaigning against any psychological or psychiatric research investment and treatments (Smith and Wessely 2014). Some psychiatrists and medical practitioners have criticised ME activists for their 'strident' denial of any psychological component to their illness as 'frankly offensive' by 'stigmatising mental health patients and vilifying psychiatry' (ibid: 218).…”

Section: The Contested Framing Of Me/cfsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME/CFS

Spandler

Allen²

2017

Soc Theory Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ME/CFS is a medically contested illness and its understanding, framing and treatment has been the subject of heated debate. This paper specifically examines why framing the condition as a psychiatric issue-what we refer to as 'psychiatrisation'-has been so heavily contested by patients and activists. We argue that this contestation isn't simply about stigmatising mental health conditions, as some have suggested, but relates to how people diagnosed with mental illness are treated in society, psychiatry and the law. We highlight the potentially harmful consequences of psychiatrisation which can lead to people's experiential knowledge being discredited. This stems, in part, from a psychiatric-specific form of epistemic injustice which can result in unhelpful, unwanted and forced treatments. This understanding helps explain why the psychiatrisation of ME/CFS has become the focus of such bitter debate and why psychiatry itself has become such a significant 'field of contention', for both ME/CFS patients and mental health service users/survivors. Notwithstanding important differences, both reject the way psychiatry denies patient explanations and understandings, and therefore share a collective struggle for justice and legitimation. Reasons why this shared struggle has not resulted in alliances between ME and mental health activists are noted.

show abstract

“…It certainly serves as a disincentive to quality patient care if one is only allowed to bill for treatment within one's own code; preventing the neurologist treating depression or the psychiatrist commencing antiepileptic drugs. It is also a potent source of confusion, and largely irrational discussion, highlighted by the passionate but virtually meaningless debate as to whether chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis20 should be classified under an ‘F’ code (psychiatric) or a ‘G’ (neurological). Surely it is time to lobby WHO for one code, perhaps ‘B’ for brain, which would be so much better.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing a 'neuropsychiatry' special issue: but what does that mean?

Carson

2014

Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unity of opposites? Chronic fatigue syndrome and the challenge of divergent perspectives in guideline development

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Contrasting chronic fatigue syndrome versus myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Contrasting chronic fatigue syndrome versus myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME/CFS

Introducing a 'neuropsychiatry' special issue: but what does that mean?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About