Chronic Fatigue in the Context of Pediatric Physical and Mental Illness

Author(s):  
M. E. Loades ◽  
T. Chalder
2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 351-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Sykes

This paper examines the question of whether chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), often known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), should be classified as a physical or mental illness.


1990 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Wessely

SYNOPSISThe history of neurasthenia is discussed in the light of current interest in chronic fatigue, and in particular the illness called myalgic encephalomyelitis (‘ ME ’). A comparison is made of the symptoms, presumed aetiologies and treatment of both illnesses, as well as their social setting. It is shown that neurasthenia remained popular as long as it was viewed as a non-psychiatric, neurological illness caused by environmental factors which affected successful people and for which the cure was rest. The decline in neurasthenia was related to the changes which occurred in each of these views. It is argued that similar factors are associated with the current interest in myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is further argued that neither neurasthenia nor ‘ ME ’ can be fully understood within a single medical or psychiatric model. Instead both have arisen in the context of contemporary explanations and attitudes involving mental illness. Future understanding, treatment and prevention of these and related illnesses will depend upon both psychosocial and neurobiological explanations of physical and mental fatigability.


Author(s):  
Jenelle Marcelle Safadi ◽  
Alice M. G. Quinton ◽  
Belinda R. Lennox ◽  
Philip W. J. Burnet ◽  
Amedeo Minichino

AbstractReduced gut-microbial diversity (“gut dysbiosis”) has been associated with an anhedonic/amotivational syndrome (“sickness behavior”) that manifests across severe mental disorders and represent the key clinical feature of chronic fatigue. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated differences in proxy biomarkers of gut dysbiosis in patients with severe mental illness and chronic fatigue vs. controls and the association of these biomarkers with sickness behavior across diagnostic categories. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched from inception to April 2020 for all the studies investigating proxy biomarkers of gut dysbiosis in patients with severe mental illness and chronic fatigue. Data were independently extracted by multiple observers, and a random-mixed model was used for the analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 index. Thirty-three studies were included in the systematic review; nineteen in the meta-analysis (N = 2758 patients and N = 1847 healthy controls). When compared to controls, patients showed increased levels of zonulin (four studies reporting data on bipolar disorder and depression, SMD = 0.97; 95% Cl = 0.10–1.85; P = 0.03, I2 = 86.61%), lipopolysaccharide (two studies reporting data on chronic fatigue and depression, SMD = 0.77; 95% Cl = 0.42–1.12; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%), antibodies against endotoxin (seven studies reporting data on bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, and chronic fatigue, SMD = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.27–1.70; P < 0.01, I2 = 97.14%), sCD14 (six studies reporting data on bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, and chronic fatigue, SMD = 0.54; 95% Cl 0.16–0.81; P < 0.01, I2 = 90.68%), LBP (LBP, two studies reporting data on chronic fatigue and depression, SMD = 0.87; 95% Cl = 0.25–1.48; P < 0.01; I2 = 56.80%), alpha-1-antitripsin (six studies reporting data on bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia, SMD = 1.23; 95% Cl = 0.57–1.88; P < 0.01, I2: 89.25%). Elevated levels of gut dysbiosis markers positively correlated with severity of sickness behavior in patients with severe mental illness and chronic fatigue. Our findings suggest that gut dysbiosis may underlie symptoms of sickness behavior across traditional diagnostic boundaries. Future investigations should validate these findings comparing the performances of the trans-diagnostic vs. categorical approach. This will facilitate treatment breakthrough in an area of unmet clinical need.


1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 691-691
Author(s):  
Annie McCloud

Sir: Thompson's article on the internet and suicide (Psychiatric Bulletin, August 1999, 23, 449–451) is a timely and welcome addition to the slowly growing literature on the internet and health. However, she could possibly have developed further positive ways of approaching the influence of the internet. Attempting to shut down, or restrict access to internet sites dealing with suicide is likely to be difficult to enforce in practice and may inadvertently block access to sources of positive help. It is important to stress the potential benefits of support online. The vast majority of online informants of my current thesis in medical anthropology on chronic fatigue syndrome and internet use reported that it provided a lifeline in the face of prejudice and lack of sympathy for family and desertion by friends. There is a vast untapped potential for NHS trusts and bodies such as Mind, or the Royal College of Psychiatrists to set up websites, moderated newsgroups and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) services to provide more therapeutic approaches to suicide and mental illness than those described by Thompson.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.


1999 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 319 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.A. DUPREZ ◽  
M.L. DE BUYZERE ◽  
B. DRIEGHE ◽  
F. VANHAVERBEKE ◽  
Y. TAES ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document