Assessing attitudes toward new names for chronic fatigue syndrome

Redefining fatty liver disease: an international patient perspective

Despite its increased recognition as a major health threat, fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. An international consensus panel has called for the disease to be renamed from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and has suggested how the disease should be diagnosed. This Viewpoint explores the call from the perspective of patient advocacy groups. Patients are well aware of the negative consequences of the NAFLD acronym. This advocacy group enthusiastically endorses the call to reframe the disease, which we believe will ultimately have a positive effect on patient care and quality of life and, through this effect, will reduce the burden on health-care systems. For patients, policy makers, health planners, donors, and non-hepatologists, the new acronym MAFLD is clear, squarely placing the disease as a manifestation of metabolic dysfunction and improving understanding at a public health and patient level. The authors from representative patient groups are supportive of this change, particularly as the new acronym is meaningful to all citizens as well as governments and policy makers, and, above all, is devoid of any stigma.

Stigma and the Term Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Considerable discussion has occurred concerning the diagnostic label chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Many patient groups argue that using this term trivializes the seriousness of the syndrome. A federal government organization, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Coordinating Committee, appointed a Name Change Workgroup to attempt to develop different terminology for this disorder. This group distributed a poll to patients and health-care providers to obtain information about its recommendation to use an umbrella term, chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome, and subtypes under it. In addition, the CFIDS Association, a national self-help advocacy organization, distributed a questionnaire to a group of health-care providers concerning these recommendations. The findings of both polls are presented. Overall findings indicated that the majority of patients want the name changed and that the term chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome was acceptable to the majority of this group.

The use of mixed methods in studying a chronic illness

This article explores mixed methods approaches with an illness called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). Qualitative and Quantitative data were used to investigate the epidemiology of this illness, as well as explore attributions based on the name of the illness, and finally treatment approaches. In each of the domains within the ME and CFS research reviewed, our analyses were richer and our findings ultimately more impactful when we integrated qualitative and quantitative research methods. The use of a multiphase mixed methods research program provided our team unique vantage points for better understanding social and community issues involving this controversial chronic illness. Further, this approach allowed us to implement the insights gained through an advocacy lens to change policy, recommend and evaluate treatments, and amplify voices within the patient population. In this way, we believe that the practice of methodological pluralism is especially applicable and effective to the study of chronic illness, and believe other investigators will benefit from the use of these approaches with similar disenfranchised and unfairly treated populations.

Conceptual model for physical therapist management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis

Fatigue is one of the most common reasons why people consult health care providers. Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is one cause of clinically debilitating fatigue. The underdiagnosis of CFS/ME, along with the spectrum of symptoms that represent multiple reasons for entry into physical therapy settings, places physical therapists in a unique position to identify this health condition and direct its appropriate management. The diagnosis and clinical correlates of CFS/ME are becoming better understood, although the optimal clinical management of this condition remains controversial. The 4 aims of this perspective article are: (1) to summarize the diagnosis of CFS/ME with the goal of promoting the optimal recognition of this condition by physical therapists; (2) to discuss aerobic system and cognitive deficits that may lead to the clinical presentation of CFS/ME; (3) to review the evidence for graded exercise with the goal of addressing limitations in body structures and functions, activity, and participation in people with CFS/ME; and (4) to present a conceptual model for the clinical management of CFS/ME by physical therapists.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome versus Chronic Neuroendocrineimmune Dysfunction Syndrome

Since 1988, when the term chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was coined, considerable discussion has occurred about stigma associated with this diagnostic term. In particular, patients with CFS have felt that this term trivializes the serious nature of this disorder. A Name Change Work group, appointed by the CFS Coordinating Committee, developed an umbrella term: chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome (CNDS), and proposed that there would be sub-types under this term, one being CFS. The present study examined attributions of this new umbrella term when compared with CFS. Nurses and physician assistants (PAs) were presented a case study of a patient with symptoms of CFS. They were told that the patient had either "chronic fatigue syndrome," "chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome," or "chronic neuroendocrineimmune dysfunction syndrome, which had formerly been called chronic fatigue syndrome." The different terms led to different attributions, with PA respondents rating the "CNDS" label as more severe. Results suggest that a more medical sounding term (CNDS) may lead to attributions that this syndrome is a more serious, disabling illness. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.