Healthcare system barriers impacting the care of Canadians with myalgic encephalomyelitis: a scoping review

Inclusion Criteria

• ▪ The participants, population, or context explicitly included ME. Patients were diagnosed using any recognized diagnostic criteria, or patients self-reported their diagnosis. The sample could include multiple conditions, but a proportion must have ME.

• ▪ The participants, population, or context were Canadian. In the case of expert reviews/consensus documents that were not otherwise explicitly about Canada, the first or last author’s institutional affiliation was Canadian.

• ▪ The participants/population were exclusively or primarily aged ≥18 years old (or described as adults).

• ▪ Peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents, including quantitative or qualitative data relevant to healthcare system barriers or expert reviews/consensus documents that explicitly discuss healthcare system barriers (where experts could be clinicians focusing on ME or representatives of ME patient associations).

• ▪ MSc or PhD theses, including quantitative or qualitative data relevant to healthcare system barriers (not otherwise published in the peer-reviewed literature).

• ▪ Published in English.

Exclusion Criteria

• ▪ The sample or context describes chronic or complex symptoms or an illness that is not ME (such as chronic fatigue, a symptom of multiple pathologies).

• ▪ Articles that provide inadvertent examples of, for example, stigma and stereotyping, yet do not explicitly discuss healthcare system barriers.

• ▪ Study or review protocols.

• ▪ Conference abstracts/proceedings.

Although the concept of healthcare system barriers is wide-ranging, we were interested in barriers at multiple levels, whether governance challenges and resource constraints, health system engagement, or institutional bias. These were used in our protocol as broad examples of upstream factors that result in the patient’s experience of suboptimal care.

Peer-reviewed Literature

We searched five databases for citation and reference data across life sciences, biomedicine, behavioural and social sciences, nursing, and general academic journals. We searched MEDLINE(R), Embase, and PsycINFO via the Ovid interface, CINAHL via the EBSCO interface, and supplemented this using the Web of Science database. These formal searches were conducted on July 11, 2022. The full search strategy for peer-reviewed literature is available in the protocol (https://osf.io/ychx3/). The search strategy was conducted using a combination of two of the three key concepts: (1) ME and (2) Canadian context. The ME concept was broad enough to capture all potentially relevant records (for example, we included chronic and persistent fatigue and post-infectious or post-viral fatigue/illness as search terms) and narrowed to ME, ME/CFS or CFS during screening. The Canadian context was captured using a search filter to retrieve studies related to Canada, Canadian provinces, and the one hundred largest Canadian centres by the University of Alberta Library [8]. The third concept (healthcare system barriers) was not included in our search strategy because pilot searches confirmed that the literature was sparse enough for us to consider all Canadian literature on ME and its potential relevance to this search concept.

Grey Literature

We searched Canada Commons, a database that covers Canadian E-books and government and policy documents, on November 25, 2022. We also used two custom Google search engines. A custom search engine for Canadian public health information (Ontario Public Health Libraries Association) was used to search the websites of federal and provincial health departments, public health agencies, and collaborating centres [9]. A custom Google search engine designed by the University of Waterloo Library was used to search for Canadian federal, provincial, and municipal government documents and publications [10]. These custom Google searches were conducted on January 18, 2023. Based on pilot testing for relevance, two search terms were used in the final searches for both databases: “chronic fatigue syndrome” and “myalgic encephalomyelitis.” Pilot testing using other terms such as “post-viral illness,” “fatigue syndrome,” “post-viral fatigue,” and “post-exertional malaise” did not result in any unique records. In addition, our team included patient partners who were aware of (or involved in producing) grey literature relevant to this scoping review, particularly from provincial and national ME patient associations. Patient partners provided potentially eligible documents, which were included in the grey literature screening if they had not already arisen from the database searches.

Peer-reviewed Literature

Search results were de-duplicated using the Systematic Review Accelerator [11]. All categorized duplicates (ranging from extremely likely to likely duplicates) were manually checked to confirm the correct classification as duplicates. Following de-deduplication, records were imported into Rayyan, a systematic review software [12]. Titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility by two researchers (SH, LE), blinded to each other’s decisions during this initial process. RT reviewed all conflicts, and records considered potentially relevant were retrieved in full and assessed for eligibility. A spreadsheet was used for full-text screening. SH or LE made preliminary notes and decisions, and RT performed a subsequent screening of all full texts against the eligibility criteria. In the case of uncertainty or discrepancies between RT, SH, and LE, all authors were consulted, and a consensus was reached via review and discussion.

Grey Literature

For Canada Commons, due to low numbers, all records from a search of “myalgic encephalomyelitis” were exported to a spreadsheet. For the “chronic fatigue syndrome” search, the first 200 records (ordered by relevance) were exported after pilot screening indicated that the first ∼50 records were potentially relevant. Due to low numbers, all records resulting from custom Google searches were exported to a spreadsheet. Following manual de-duplication, records were retrieved in full and assessed for eligibility by SH or LE. RT reviewed all decisions, and a consensus was reached through author discussions. Unique grey literature provided by patient partners was manually added to a spreadsheet and screened against the eligibility criteria by LE and RT (no discrepancies). All authors had the opportunity to review decisions and their justifications, and consensus was reached for all records.

(1) An underlying lack of consensus and research on ME and ME care

Several expert reviews/consensus documents involving physicians pointed to the lack of consensus on the name, etiology, diagnostic criteria, and treatment/management of ME in the scientific literature. A lack of accepted Canadian clinical care guidelines and toolkits for healthcare professionals was also apparent. The situation has arisen from a historical lack of recognition and research funding, which has downstream impacts on available healthcare services. Even in an unprecedented scenario of a patient having early access to a knowledgeable physician who is familiar with ME, located at a sufficiently resourced clinic, and confident in assessment, diagnosis, and management, currently, there are no evidence-based treatments that cure ME or result in a return to pre-illness function.

A European Commission study concluded that ME receives insufficient research funding relative to its (high) burden [38]. The high burden of ME is assumed to, in part, stem from the lack of evidence about the etiology and treatment of the condition. The requirement to increase research activity also applies to Canada [26]. The first dedicated investment in biomedical research on ME in Canada was made in 2019, and the pathophysiology is under investigation internationally¹. While this is underway, those involved in ME research/care have reached a consensus on several (international) clinical guidelines, and these can be shared with healthcare professionals [1,39,40]. In our experience, and based on the scientific literature, there are few independent researchers studying ME in Canada. This limits the ability of some teams to apply for funding, submit ethics applications, and publish. Alongside biomedical researchers, those with expertise in medical, educational ecosystems, anti-stigma interventions, and population health should be supported to enter the field through targeted investments.

(2) The impact of long-standing stigma, disbelief, and sexism

This category is not particular to Canada but arose from nearly all included resources. A historical overview was out of the scope of our review, but to summarize, ME is (and always has been) a contested illness that arouses suspicion that symptoms are exaggerated, used to avoid duties, work, or obtain insurance. On the contrary, obtaining disability insurance and other social benefits has been notoriously difficult for people with ME [5,17,25,32]. Because ME affects more women than men, the legacy of women’s symptoms being assigned to hysteria cannot be underestimated. Historically, doctors, researchers, and research participants have predominantly been male, and this is still being corrected. There are now many examples of gender bias in healthcare (the gender pain gap is one example, where women’s pain is more likely to be disbelieved, psychologized, and undertreated [41]) and gender disparity in funding of diseases predominantly impacting women [42], with ME being a prominent example. By association, this also impacts men, who are invalidated as having a predominantly female condition [30]. Stigma, disbelief, and sexism lead to healthcare visits where patient testimonials are discredited, leading to distress and withdrawal from the healthcare system to alternative care [14,16,21,32]. We point interested readers to Blease et al. [4], who describe healthcare consultations as a setting where people with ME are vulnerable to epistemic injustice.

There is evidence that people with ME are viewed differently by healthcare providers. In an analysis of an online forum, natural language processing was used to show that doctors’ attitudes are inconsistent across disease types, and ME was discussed with more negative language than all other diseases [43]. Several included articles used ambiguous terms describing symptoms as ‘medically unexplained’ [13,14,20]. Although this can be used as a broad term for symptoms for which patients seek biological care where providers have not found a biological cause, it is most often used for symptoms with primarily psychosocial causes [44]. This label can be harmful to people with complex conditions like ME because ‘unexplained’ symptoms can be used as evidence of dysfunctional illness beliefs [45]. The stress and humiliation of being disbelieved contribute to the emotional burden, which can then be incorrectly perceived as a cause rather than the consequence of the illness [32]. In addition, ME is an invisible disability that leaves some homebound or bedbound, yet for others is episodic, involving unpredictable fluctuations that occur without warning and last for uncertain periods of time. Both invisible and episodic disabilities are delegitimized, and people with ME are less likely to experience healthcare professionals who understand the support needed [24,46].

(3) Inadequate or inconsistent healthcare provider education and training on ME

Several articles included reports from healthcare providers noting inadequate education and training on ME [5,23,26,31], and this was reflected in patient reports [5,30,32]. In line with international studies, to our knowledge, ME is sporadically included in medical/healthcare curricula and not in sufficient depth to be comprehensive [47]. For example, in Europe, family physicians lack confidence in diagnosing or managing the care of people living with ME and desire more education [48]. With the increased awareness of post-viral illness and ME due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the involvement of occupational and physical therapists in long COVID rehabilitation, the knowledge of recently trained healthcare professionals is unknown. Although there are gaps in what we know about the current situation in Canada, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s call for significant improvements in the education of healthcare professionals [40] is certainly applicable. Currently, a workforce that is experiencing unreasonable demands, high levels of stress and burnout amidst a primary care crisis [49] must identify credible sources and self-direct their learning on ME. Because this may not be possible for the majority of healthcare providers, patients have the frustrating experience of bringing research and clinical guidance to their physician [5], and this is not always received positively. Instead, a shared Canadian curriculum and series of materials to support learning could be collaboratively developed and tested. Alongside a comprehensive needs assessment for Canadian healthcare providers, models for implementing education and continuing professional development on ME are needed.

(4) The heterogeneity of care coordinated by family physicians

The barriers described in categories 1-3 contribute to the obstacles patients face accessing care, typically via family physicians. Depending on the knowledge, experience, and bias of the individual doctor, the experience of assessment, diagnosis, and management will vary for each patient. Not being acknowledged as sick can be confusing and painful, and multiple articles described the long and difficult paths to diagnosis that people face in Canada [5,21,26,30,32]. Even in the absence of treatments, diagnosis goes beyond validation: it is necessary for specific resources (e.g., insurance and employment services) [21]. ME is a multi-system illness that does not fit neatly under a single medical specialty and has not been widely adopted by one. Considering there are common comorbidities [13,15], and investigations are needed so other medical conditions are not missed [39], multiple referrals are often required [17,21,26,28]. Care continuity relies on an engaged and supportive family physician to help navigate the patient through the complexity of the illness and healthcare system. The family doctor can be a gatekeeper for secondary and tertiary healthcare.

The inaccessibility of care can also be an obstacle, and many patients struggle with travel, the demands of the visit, and the lack of home and virtual services. In rare specialist ME clinics (three we are aware of in Canada), patients may have a better interaction with the healthcare system, but the waitlists are long, and services are limited due to a lack of resources. Although some articles included the perspectives of healthcare professionals [26,31], the structural barriers to specializing in ME care have yet to be explored. However, some patients acknowledge the need for supportive infrastructure and appropriate reimbursement for physicians (given the complexity of CFS) [32].