**2. Methods**

In 2018, we conducted an audit of hospital doctors attending a training event. Traditionally, response rates from physician-knowledge surveys are often low. As such, approaching doctors in person presented an informal setting and rapid way to gather responses.

All physicians in the region who were training in general internal medicine at ST3-8 level were required to attend this mandatory training day. Only those who were oncall or on leave would have been excused. There were in the region of one hundred attendees. Most of these GIM trainees were also training in another medical specialty, such as cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, nephrology, gastroenterology,

neurology, rheumatology, haematology, dermatology, infectious diseases, palliative care, oncology, geriatrics or acute medicine.

This particular training day was unique in that a short introductory lecture on ME was scheduled. Other lectures were on unrelated topics. We developed a pre-planned questionnaire with input from experts in the field (Appendix A). These were handed out and returned on the same day. It was specified that answers should be based on participants' knowledge before the lecture on ME. The questionnaire asked about prior knowledge and experience of ME, including previous education, confidence in managing the condition, and understanding of its epidemiology and pattern of chronicity. It also enquired about participants' approaches to diagnosis and management, the perceived impact of the illness, and whether or not participants were interested in having additional education on ME.

A total of 44 completed questionnaires were returned. Responses were tabulated, proportions selecting available options determined, and 95% confidence limits calculated. Where relevant, associations between responses were presented in 2 × 2 tables, and the significance of such associations determined by Fisher's exact test.
