Read the Full Survey Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluating a Proposed Name to Replace ‘ME/CFS’: A Community Survey Project Conducted by Lisa Petrison, Ph.D. Published by Paradigm Change (March 2015) Copyright 2015 www.paradigmchange.me 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Part 1 – Results Overview .......................................................................................................................... 13 Part 2 - Implications ................................................................................................................................... 29 Part 3 – Survey Questions .......................................................................................................................... 49 Part 4 – Main Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 66 Part 5 – ME vs. Non-ME Results ............................................................................................................... 110 Part 6 – US ME vs. Non-ME Results ......................................................................................................... 127 Part 7 – Related Illnesses Results ............................................................................................................ 161 Part 8 – US vs. Non-US Results ................................................................................................................. 181 Part 9 – Clinician Results .......................................................................................................................... 191 Part 10 – Version 1 vs. Version 2 Results................................................................................................. 204 Part 11 – Whole Survey Results ............................................................................................................... 210 Part 12 – Positive SEID Comments ........................................................................................................... 221 Part 13 – Negative SEID Comments ......................................................................................................... 237 Part 14 – More SEID Comments ............................................................................................................... 322 Part 15 – ME Comments ........................................................................................................................... 331 Part 16 – More ME Comments ................................................................................................................. 366 Part 17 – Change Decision Comments ..................................................................................................... 389 Part 18 – Setting Priorities Comments .................................................................................................... 412 Part 19 – Name Choice Comments .......................................................................................................... 429 Part 20 – More Naming Comments ......................................................................................................... 464 Part 21 – IOM Report Comments ............................................................................................................ 473 Part 22 – Additional Comments ............................................................................................................... 493 Part 23 – Community Voices .................................................................................................................... 507 Part 24 – Other Name Surveys ................................................................................................................. 517 Part 25 – Medscape Clinicians’ Comments .............................................................................................. 520 Part 26 – About the Researcher ............................................................................................................... 526 3 Executive Summary Executive Summary Introduction This survey obtained the opinions of patients, advocates and other stakeholders about the idea of using the term systemic exertion intolerance disease (SEID) as a replacement for the name myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), as was recently proposed by an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel report. The survey also gathered opinions about the naming process and about participants’ preferred names for the disease. The survey was presented to the community by the organizations ME Advocacy and Paradigm Change. Data was collected from February 21 to March 1, 2015. Part 1 of this report summarizes the survey results in text form, and Part 2 provides an analytical discussion of the implications of the results. Subsequent sections of the report present the findings in detail with graphics. Following is a brief summary of some of the most important findings. Main Results A total of 1004 people participated in the main survey. 5 Executive Summary It was promoted by sharing information on forums, blogs and email newsletters directed at people with ME, ME/CFS, CFS and CEBV. About 89% of the respondents to the main survey reported being patients with ME, ME/CFS, CFS, or a combination of these. About 17% described themselves as advocates. About 39% of the respondents to the main survey were from the U.S. The rest were from other countries, including the UK (18%), Belgium (14%), Canada (9%), Australia (6%), Netherlands (6%) and many others. About 62% of the participants in the main survey said the proposed name was pretty bad or very bad. About 18% said that the proposed name was pretty good or very good. About 70% of the participants agreed that the naming process had failed to result in a legitimate name. About 15% of the participants disagreed that the naming process had failed to result in a legitimate name. About half of the respondents agreed that they were angry about the naming process. About 18% of the respondents disagreed that they were angry. About three-fourths of the respondents said that it would be somewhat unacceptable or totally unacceptable for the government to start using the name SEID without further public dialogue on the topic. About 20% of the respondents said that it would be somewhat acceptable or totally acceptable. About half of the respondents who were asked the question said that the proposed name was better than chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). About 20% said the proposed name was better than myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Additional questions were asked on specific positive and negative aspects of the name, on whether participants had had sufficient opportunities to provide input on what the name should be, and on other topics. See Part 4 of this report for an in-depth presentation of responses to all questions in the main survey, including graphic charts. 6 Executive Summary Name Preferences Participants were asked what they would like for the disease to be called and allowed to supply up to three choices. The question asked respondents to assume that an acceptable definition would be adopted to go along with the name. It also promised that the results would not be used to select a name, but rather just to get a sense of how people were thinking. At least when the question was asked this way, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) was by far the favorite name. It received almost as many first-choice mentions as all the other names combined, and well over twice as many total mentions as any other name. Runner-up names were Neuro Endocrine Immune Disease (NEID) and Ramsay’s Disease. The name proposed by the IOM committee, Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID), received about one-tenth as many first-choice mentions as did ME, and about one-fifth as many total mentions. The ME variant Myalgic Encephalopathy received about as many mentions as SEID did. ME/CFS was the sixth most popular name, and other name possibilities were mentioned as well. 7 Executive Summary The discussion of Implications in Part 2 of this report focuses largely on what the survey findings suggest about issues that likely would be relevant to the attempted adoption of each of these names. The full breakdown of name mentions is included in Part 4. ME, ME/CFS and CFS Patients An important finding of the research project was that patients who stated that they had ME tended to express particular attitudes relevant to the name. These individuals were more negative about the proposed name as well as about the naming process than were patients who said that they had just ME/CFS or CFS. People who said they had ME were especially likely to express specific concerns about the proposed name, including the belief that it would not meet the needs of severe patients. The differences between ME and non-ME patients were particularly substantial among those who said they are citizens of the U.S. 8 Executive Summary U.S. patients who said that they had ME but not ME/CFS or CFS expressed the most negative attitudes of all groups with regard to both the proposed name and the naming process. Complete survey results on this topic, including graphic charts, are in Parts 5 and 6 of this report. Citizenship Participants from other countries and ones from the U.S. looked similar in their responses to all the questions. The main difference was that people from other countries