Earlier this year we set up two very similar online surveys that asked what people thought of the ME Association. One was for members of the ME Association and one for non-members.
A total of 157 members and 107 non-members took the time to complete the very detailed questionnaires, and we thank you for taking the time to do so.
The answers we received have now been gathered into a report that will form a key part of our ongoing strategic review.
You told us why you joined as a member, or remained a non-member, what you specifically liked, or did not like, whether or not we had lived up to your expectations, how well we were performing as a charity and how we were doing in supporting you, in lobbying for change, and in the vital area of research.
The report lets you see at a glance how members and non-members responded to all questions and provides examples from the many comments we received. Your praise, suggestions and constructive criticism will help us plan the next few years. Thank you again to everyone who took part.
The report can be viewed as a pdf below.
Been a member since 1984. Things have become so much more professional since that time. However, I see too many lay interpretations of the psychological theories and a lot of arguments against the PACE trial are weak or simply silly. It’s been too easy for the researchers to make us all look ignorant. The lack of knowledge on our side may be one reason why the UK charities failed to convince journalists and ‘neutrals’ that the study is poor and should be treated accordingly. American professors are now doing what British groups should have done in 2011. The Americans aren’t afraid of getting psychologists to focus on the illogical theory behind CBT and GET and work with other scientists to mount a campaign to calculate the real recovery rate. Must we always rely on the Americans to do what we should be doing?