General practitioners' perceptions of chronic fatigue syndrome and beliefs about its management, compared with irritable bowel syndrome: qualitative study
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38078.503819.EE (Published 03 June 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1354
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Perhaps we are looking at 2 different disorders: chronic fatigue
syndrome with a primarily physiologic basis, and another form of the
syndrome that is primarily psychogenic in origin.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Well thank you very much Barrington Johnson for providing us all with
a prime example of what the authors of the said report discovered and
reprted on! You obviously have NO knowledge whatsoever about ME or else
you would not have spouted such ill informed twaddle. Frankly you give
your profession a terrible name and reputation. Is it any wonder that you
and your like get attacked by patients? I think not.
What you have written is disgraceful and totally unfair and without a
shred of evidence. I would suggest that it is people like you who stand to
gain most from pushing the psyche agenda for ME. I can tell you that I
have gained exactly NOTHING from having ME for over 22 years. I have lost
hundreds of thousands of pounds in potential earnings and all the items
etc that such money brings, such as a house, nice cars, holidays, etc etc.
I have missed out on relationships, marriage, the opportunity to have
children and so and so on.
What you espouse is totally ludicrous and I would suggest that it is
people like you that are deluded and in need of psychological help. You
seem to be very sure that you are right? So please in future could we have
a little more sympathy and less vindictiveness towards patients with ME.
Maybe your experiences with ME patients are the result of your own
attitudes and handling of them. I know I've met many doctors like you and
when you are a victim of injustice, rudeness, and sheer downright
unfairness, you do tend to want to fight back. Please think about it
"Barrington", or whatever your name is?
Yours fed up with arrogant, rude, disbelieving, prejudiced and closed
minded doctors,
Geoff Sullivan
Competing interests:
Person with long-term ME
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sadly it will have come as little surprise to many sufferers of
ME/CFS that unless GP’s have had first hand experience of ME/CFS
patients often experience a poor level of understanding of this illness
in the doctors’ surgery.
It must though be open to question whether GP’s themselves are
entirely to blame for this situation. Information being disseminated
appears to be poor, GP’s seem to be fed on a “diet” of papers and
articles with a psychiatric "accent" by the mainstream medical journals
and the diagnostic criteria now appears to be so nebulous that they may
find it difficult to differentiate ME from other fatigue states.
Fortunately as an ME sufferer my own experience has been somewhat
more positive as my GP is keen to be updated on the latest biomedical
research findings from organisations such as MERGE and others committed to
unravelling the physical causes of ME/CFS (as detailed by Douglas
Fraser). The “Canadian Criteria” (1) for ME/CFS also seems to have been
well received at our local surgery - it would seem that to date nothing as
comprehensive has been produced here in the UK.
Having eventually lost my career due to ME/CFS last year and the
means to support my family I find that references to "low symptom
thresholds", "poor work ethic" and "secondary gain" not only alarming but
quite frankly, pathetic. Everybody that I know who suffers from this
wretched illness is desperate to resume a normal life again and regain
some degree of autonomy and financial independence.
Unfortunately Dr Barrington Johnson's comments are also
particularly unhelpful and I am left wondering quite what illness he is
referring to when talking collectively (and I feel a little
contemptuously) of "these patients". Given that Kennedy et al (2) recently
demonstrated the inclusive nature of the 1994 Fukuda criteria it is
extremely disappointing that we still have health service professionals
advocating a “one size fits all” approach. He also talks about ME/CFS as
"this game" and regrettably that is precisely what it has become, as
those who should know better continue to play games with other peoples
lives.
Finally I am far from clear why Rosalind Raine and her colleagues
were comparing GP's attitudes between ME/CFS and IBS at all. Surely it
would have been more logical to compare GP’s attitudes to the management
of ME/CFS with other neurological illnesses such as MS ?
Duncan Cox
1. ME/CFS: Clinical Working Case Definition, Diagnostic and Treatment
Protocols.
Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2003, 11, 7 - 116.
2. Kennedy et al. Specficity of CDC criteria for CFS. Annals of
Epedimiology. Feb 2004.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The contribution by "Will Johnston" serves as a useful reminder when
reading material relating to ME/CFS, to first check and carefully consider
the interests of the authors and their sponsors in order to gain more
insight into the validity of the particular view being promulgated.
( "Will Johnston" appears to be a David Jameson with a website at
http://www.mind-body-health.net/ )
Drs. Brian Martin and Gabriele Bammer provide an analysis of such
"controversy" in medical science and knowledge in their essay - "When
experts disagree" - at:
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/96Ranney.html
Douglas T Fraser
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I thank Dr. Lodico for his contribution to this debate, that he
speaks as a psychiatrist, and a patient with ME/CFS, lends further
strength to the points he has made.
I would also like to thank my American friend Ms Miller for her
contribution, we have crossed paths often in our search for answers.
The issue over how GPs perceive and treat their patients is a serious
one; they have an all-important role to play in the patient’s physical and
psychological well-being. A GP who takes ME seriously stands to gain as
much as the patient, together they can learn much, but mutual respect and
trust are paramount if this is to succeed.
As Bernie Siegel so correctly says “survivors seek wisdom, they read
books, they go on the internet. They’ll seek information and look into
various treatments”.
I am a survivor but my search for answers and solutions has not
always been appreciated, wrongly GPs have felt that accepting my fate
would make theirs and my life easier. Clearly they have no understanding
of devastation this illness has in terms of symptoms and our lives. I
would not wish it on my worst enemy.
I am now one of the lucky ones; in more recent years I have been
seeing a GP who has some understanding of how this illness impacts upon my
life. With trial and error we have found some solutions, she allows me
whatever time I need in times of distress and when I am searching for a
better understanding of what is going wrong. She does not feel threatened
by my research and encourages me to keep looking for answers. She is happy
to give her opinion when I discuss my discoveries; I listen and respect
what she has to say.
This is how should be for all ME patients, sadly for most with this
dreadful and disabling illness it is not the case.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir:
This study by Raine and colleagues (2004) makes a very interesting
reading and in particular its methodology is very impressive. Notably,
this study explores comparatively the perceptions of general practitioners
about chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome, the two
poorly understood syndromes. The other key grey areas at the interface of
psychiatry and medicine are fibromyalgia, functional gestrointestinal
disorders, noncardiac chest pain, chronic headache, dizziness, medically
unexplained syncope, and chronic unexplained pelvic pain.
Collectively, all of these disorders appear to be characterized by
increased current and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders,
increased nonspecific emotional distress and increased psychosocial
stressors. These undistinguished conditions have multifactorial models for
their etiology, which include psychiatric disorders (somatic presentation
of psychiatric disorders) , psychosocial stressors, psychosocial trauma,
and concepts underlying somatosensory amplification and misattribution of
symptoms.
This study has multiple implications, 1) GPs generally appear to have
variable lack of confidence in dealing with patients having one of the
aforesaid conditions and hence may require continuing condensed training
courses on somatoform disorders, 2) GPs should develop a very healthy
therapeutic alliance with these patients who need extensive evaluation
coupled with proper investigations, 3) although GPs don't have indepth
knowledge in psychiatric interventions to be used in such clienteles, they
should not hesitate in seeking help from competent mental health
professionals, 4) there should be specifically tailored courses for
changing GPs' revealed negative stereotypes against patients with IBS/CFS,
5) health authorities should establish "somatoform disorders clinics" [if
these are not there], which should be supervised by consultation-liaison
psychiatrists, though GPs may be delegated the leading role in running
these clinics. Allied mental health professionals can also contribute
substantially to the therapeutic benefits of these difficult cases.
Finally, we all should listen patiently to these patients, develop
with them good rapport, offer them what therapies we have, and explain to
them as explicitly as possible and in simple terms the nature of the
disease. We should not reject these patients because they have some
ingrained ill-defined "somatic" traits that produce treatment resistance
in their course of illness.
Reference:
Rosalind Raine, Simon Carter, Tom Sensky, and Nick Black
General practitioners' perceptions of chronic fatigue syndrome and beliefs
about its management, compared with irritable bowel syndrome: qualitative
study. BMJ 2004; 328: 1354-1357
Competing interests:
As the main objective of our project entitled "Integration of mental health into primary care", our team of experts train GPs in clinical psychiatry in Saudi Arabia.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir:
I would like to draw your attention to the box at the end of this
article (1). The following sentence under the heading of what is already
known" General practitioners are more uncertain or dismissive than they
are of irritable bowel chronic fatigue syndrome syndrome " needs
correction just for the purpose of laypersons' perspective, who might get
confused. It should read as "General practitioners are more uncertain or
dismissive of chronic fatigue syndrome than they are of irritable bowel
syndrome ".
Reference:
Rosalind Raine, Simon Carter, Tom Sensky, and Nick Black
General practitioners' perceptions of chronic fatigue syndrome and beliefs
about its management, compared with irritable bowel syndrome: qualitative
study. BMJ 2004; 328: 1354-1357
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Although I am perhaps repeating what others have already said, I feel
compelled to add my voice to those who have already criticised Barrington
(Fred?) Johnson's rapid response.
I have had ME for almost 20 years and the illness has totally
destroyed my life. I have seen numerous doctors, and tried many treatments
over the years (including exercise) none of which have helped. In short, I
am absolutely desperate and would try almost anything to get better.
I find it absolutely astonishing, and an utter disgrace, that someone
who has never met me or thousands of other ME sufferers around the world,
is happy on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, to lump us all together,
and label us as workshy malingerers. What breathtaking arrogance.
And what is this mysterious "secondary gain" that Dr Johnson talks
about? Has he I wonder ever faced the stress of dealing with hard nosed
insurance companies, or our kafkaesque benefits system? The reality is
that many ME sufferers who are unable to work are living in abject
poverty, often shunned by disbelieving family and former friends.
I can only hope that Dr Johnson works privately, and is not an NHS
employee. I would hate to think that taxpayers' money was being wasted
lining the pockets of an individual who clearly has so much contempt for
the very people he is paid to care for.
Sadly, I strongly suspect that the only thing that separates Dr
Johnson from many of the self-styled ME experts in this country (almost
all of whom are psychiatrists) is that he is prepared to express his views
honestly. Psychiatrists specialising in ME research are notorious for
hiding their true opinions behind a veil of obfuscation and psychobabble.
The involvement of psychiatrists in ME research and treatment over
the past 15 years has been an utter disaster. They wilfully refuse to
acknowledge the large body of evidence suggesting that ME is primarily a
physical illness, and the only "treatments" they have come up with are
Graduated Exercise (GET) and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT).
There is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence gathered by the main ME
charities that suggests GET can actually make many patients worse,
especially if they receive the treatment in the early stages of their
illness. And as for CBT, am I alone in regarding this attempt by
psychiatrists to medicalise patients' opinions (or "beliefs") as slightly
sinister, even stalinist?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Hi Dr. Johnson (and all other MDs)
I am Dr. Lodico.
I understand you better than you may know.
No one could be more shocked than I when I came down with a
disabling,
life destroying illness that I didn't believe existed.
I have since met many people who have lost successful lives
and good incomes to this disorder.
I suffer from the "figment of your [or is it my : ) ] imagination"
known here in America as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and in your neck of the
woods as ME.
I know that science and physicians often need time to catch up with
diseases.
Look at Multiple Sclerosis, a little over 50 years ago it was consider a
neurotic condition. I am not shocked that history insists on repeating
itself, though a bit saddened. I don't think it's any coincidence that
both illnesses primarily affect women. Society (and physicians it seems)
remain consistent in their prejudices.
We are psychiatrists so unlike our medical brethren, the internists
and surgeons, we are used to making diagnoses without definitive
diagnostic tests. We also know how damaging inaccurate biases are to
patient populations suffering from poorly understood and stigmatized
diseases. Because of these advantages I believe (perhaps unfairly) that
the psychiatric community should be held to a higher standard concerning
accurate diagnosis and appropriate referral of patients with Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome.
You say you are a psychiatrist so I am sure you are familiar with
these “misconceptions”: panic disorder due to “rage projected onto the
environment” and “pathologic mothers” “inducing” Schizophrenia. I don’t
expect you to believe me but the science exists for Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome just as it exists for Major Depression or Schizophrenia. Perhaps
you may believe Universities like Harvard and the US Surgeon General
(links: http://cfids.home.att.net/physicians2.html ).
I had robust good health, a full and gratifying personal life and a
professional life
that was fulfilling and finally financially rewarding (I had very high
school loans to pay off).
If wishing would make it so...I'd be taking care of patients...
instead of being one.
Sincerely,
LS Lodico, MD
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Please believe psychiatrists with CFS
Dr. Lodico (Re Medical Correctness eBMJ 6th June) showed great
courage when he admitted to suffering from CFS. Most of the psychiatrists
with ME whom I know daren't 'come out' for fear of the inevitable abuse
and ridicule. After all, if you keep hearing colleagues say how these
patients use symptoms to gain attention, how they need this illness to
'escape the rat race', how they somatise or are merely exaggerating
otherwise normal somatic phenomena, who wants to admit to having the
disease themselves? Most of us do not need the extra hassle, so we stay
quiet. Or we blame our fatigue etc on another, more acceptable disorder,
like migraines or back ache.
Dr. Lodico's response reminded me of an article by an American
surgeon with the illness (1). He referred to the trivialisation of the
illness (from exhaustion to fatigue), and the lack of understanding.
However, colleagues still prefer to believe doctors who do not have the
illness and have been surprisingly dismissive of doctors who do. Instead
of recognising the specialist knowledge and insights of these honest and
intelligent individuals, many regard them with suspicion, as they not only
contradict the popular and rather convenient stereotype, but the latter
provides us with a cheap and cheerful solution at a time when money is so
tight. If we blame CFS on a fear of activity, we don't have to fund
research into new anti-virals. But it's not scientific, as it means
accepting assumptions (e.g. that CFS is the result of deconditioning and
misguided beliefs) and ignoring the evidence of organic pathology (which
can be accessed via Medline or the factsheets on
http://freespace.virgin.net/david.axford/me/me.htm
As a shrink, I've seen colleagues reverting to the common layman's
approach to the unknown, i.e. blaming the victim in line with the just
world theory. Hence you get generalisations such as 'they all led
dysfunctional lives' or 'it's a result of their lifestyle'. These are
often based on a paucity of knowledge combined with prejudices (e.g. about
women), and sometimes, on misdiagnoses (e.g. CFS instead of burn-out
(Z73.0). Such strategies help us cope with uncertainty and fear, at least
in the short-term, but do not help the patients (2). In reality, we're
merely deceiving ourselves. We may feel we're not at risk, given we do not
lead dysfunctional lives and we're not into avoidance behaviour, but it's
an illusion. As the literature shows, a considerable number of cases of
CFS appear to have ongoing infections perpetuated, possibly, by an
inadequate immune response.
But there's more to this than a primitve way of dealing with
uncertainty. There's also denial. If one studies the most often cited
explanation for CFS, i.e. the CBT model, one can see that there is
virtualy no decent evidence to support any part of it. All the hypotheses
have been disproven (see the articles on CBT, on the website above). Yet
those old assumptions keep on being regurgitated, as though the evidence
to the contrary did not exist.
Take the continued speculation about the role of deconditioning on
fatigue. In a nutshell, research has been done but none has found a
significant correlation between lack of fitness and the symptoms of CFS.
Lack of fitness may explain tiredness and dizziness on first standing, but
sore throats? Tender glands? Vertigo? Intolerance to alcohol? Seizures?
There's more to CFS than fatigue and theories which cannot explain
intolerance to alcohol (trivial but extremely common) are at best
incomplete. The same goes for faulty beliefs. Here we have a theoretical
construct, where much of what is considered 'faulty' is based on the
assumption that all the existing evidence of ongoing disease is wrong. The
medical director of the ME Association, who must be one of the most
patient men in the UK, has spent years listing the relevant studies which
challenge the CBT model, yet many refuse to take them on board. Are all
those scientists who reported evidence of disease incompetent? Has anyone
checked?
CBT works (in some cases) because it increases self-efficacy, but so
does counselling. Graded activity works, probably because patients learn
to pace themselves better (when activity levels were measured objectively,
there were no notable increases after treatment, Goudsmit in press). We
have no data yet on the effect of psychiatric interventions where the
patients suffered from symptoms other than tiredess and emotional
distress. (An interesting question is it not: can CBT help those with
vertigo, blurred vision, seizure-like activity and intolerance to
alcohol?)
During his spell at the BMJ, Dr. Smith refused to keep readers
informed of any physiological, neurological and immunological findings in
relation to CFS. (With one notable exception, in 1995). This means that
many GPs have only read one side of the story, i.e. the CBT school's
views, leaving them frustrated and confused, as documented by Raine et
al).
I am a mental health professional who came out about my ME years ago.
I've been told by colleagues who knew the truth that despite my extensive
training as a shrink, I have no insight into my own psychological problems
(which they never shared with me, so I still don't know what they are),
that what I really need is a boyfriend (yes, please, can you clone Brad
Pitt for me?) and that I'd be better if I hadn't become an advisor to the
ME Association (since they peddle ideas which apparently keep us all ill),
etc etc.
I've actually had ME since I was a child, when my life consisted of
going to school, eating lovely food at home, playing with friends and
listening to the Beatles. I never mentioned to anyone that I was ill, as I
didn't know I was ill. All I knew was that I often felt ill and that after
a few days rest, I generally felt better again. During those days at home,
I couldn't do anything and I missed my friends. There was no reward, no
special food, no secondary gain. Later, I used a strategy called
normalisation to hide my illness. Still one psychiatrist would claim that
I used my symptoms to gain attention. He was guessing and he was wrong but
these things stayed in my notes for years, causing doubts in many of those
who read them. It took a letter from a wonderful Professor at Barts to
undo the damage caused by this inaccurate psychobabble. Others are not so
lucky.
Psychologisation, based invariably on assumptions and prejudice, is
not benign (2). People internalise these messages, especially if like me,
you've had them thrown at you for thirty years. They undermine your self-
confidence and can make you very afraid of doctors. Others become angry
and may direct that towards every professional, even if they do not really
know what they think. Hence the distrust of all psychiatrists and most
psychologists. (I may have helped devise the research criteria for ME and
introduced a useful strategy for conserving energy i.e. pacing, but I'm a
shrink and to some patients, that makes me one of 'them'. So many patients
don't respect me, and neither do most colleagues.) On the other hand, how
much misrepresentation and psychobabble are people expected to take before
they snap? The constant drip, drip, drip of trivialisation and lies,
reinforced by third rate research, is more than any normal person can
reasonably be expected to bear. And many don't.
The editorial bias which ignores everything non-psychiatric has
disempowered doctors and left them with information they often know does
not fit their experience. How many have seen patients who were perfectly
well and emotionally stable before they succumbed to a bug from which they
never recovered? Who do not fit the stereotype of the person who
misinterprets normal symptoms and becomes afraid of activities etc. I
respect Dr. Smith for all the good things he did as editor, but his
approach to CFS caused a lot of harm.
In the next few years, there will be more antiviral drugs, some of
which have been shown in preliminary trials to be helpful, and in some
cases, curative in cases of CFS (3, 4). I trust that the new editor will
be more objective and keep readers informed of these developments. In the
meantime, please think before you dismiss someone as a somatiser etc. And
why not take on board some of the insights offered by your colleagues who
know the illness first hand? We may not be able to walk very well, but
that doesn't mean we can't be objective or professional.
1. English, TL. Skeptical of skeptics. JAMA 1991, 265, 964
2. Goudsmit, EM. The psychologization of illness. In Food Allergy and
Intolerance, 2nd Ed. J Brostoff, and SJ Challacombe (EDs.) London:
Saunders: 2002. chapter 49.
3. Ablashi, DV, Peterson, D., Levine, S., Gupta, S and Whitman, J.
Human Herpesvirus-6 variant A infection in CFS patients and the use of
anti-herpes compounds, immunomodulator and a whey protein (InmmunePro Rx)
to suppress infection and improve symptoms. Chronic Fatigue &
Fibromyalgia Forum, 2003, December, 5-8. (Published by the AACFS)
4. Dalakas, MC. Enteroviruses in chronic fatigue syndrome: now you
see them, now you don't. JNNP, 2003, 74, 1361-1362.
Competing interests:
I am a health psychologist with ME
Competing interests: No competing interests