-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Correspondence from the DWP for 2004
- Thread starter JohnTheJack
- Start date
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think I'm only just getting around to looking at this now (though I often forget what I've read).
p 13 of the 23 page document @Lucibee compiled for us (thanks so much for that): White sends around a review on CFS and employment, introducing it with a hilarious little joke:
It looks like it is this review:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/217015
Aylward pulls out what he considers to be important points, the first of which is "Only depression seems to be associated with unemployment in patients with CFS." He also says: "Methodological studies are needed to identify and evaluate interventions that are effective in restoring ability to work." [This is page 12].
None of the points Mansel pulls out make any mention of the clear limitations of the review. eg, as even the review authors noted "Thus, the major limitation of this review is that the studies we identified as the best available evidence were not designed to answer the types of questions posed in this review. And owing to the variety of study designs, scales used, and outcomes reported, results of different studies could not be combined in meaningful ways. Researchers did not report consistent information about impairment and work status at both baseline and follow-up."
Waddell's reply says: "Nice review and I agree with most on Mansel's points. Taking it further, might it also again raise the more general question of how much (in)capacity for work is a matter of health (or health care)? Might this also link to the other questions we have discussed about 'motivation' to work/personal responsibility and choice/etc that may account for some (a lot?) of the missing variance?"
The White/Waddell/Aylward/Halligan group is not an good one for patients.
On page 11 there's a note that Sharpe is the one writing the PACE TSC minutes, which makes some of his playing ignorant re actometers even funnier.
The fact that it was the DWP's Aylward who seemed to be the one to get Chris Clarke & AfME involved in PACE just shows what a disaster Clarke was. I get the impression that quite a lot of the large UK charities are run by Establishment sorts who all just chum along with each other and act as if they're doing decent things, rather than daring to challenge any of the real problems faced by those they claim to represent.
p 13 of the 23 page document @Lucibee compiled for us (thanks so much for that): White sends around a review on CFS and employment, introducing it with a hilarious little joke:
It looks like it is this review:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/217015
Aylward pulls out what he considers to be important points, the first of which is "Only depression seems to be associated with unemployment in patients with CFS." He also says: "Methodological studies are needed to identify and evaluate interventions that are effective in restoring ability to work." [This is page 12].
None of the points Mansel pulls out make any mention of the clear limitations of the review. eg, as even the review authors noted "Thus, the major limitation of this review is that the studies we identified as the best available evidence were not designed to answer the types of questions posed in this review. And owing to the variety of study designs, scales used, and outcomes reported, results of different studies could not be combined in meaningful ways. Researchers did not report consistent information about impairment and work status at both baseline and follow-up."
Waddell's reply says: "Nice review and I agree with most on Mansel's points. Taking it further, might it also again raise the more general question of how much (in)capacity for work is a matter of health (or health care)? Might this also link to the other questions we have discussed about 'motivation' to work/personal responsibility and choice/etc that may account for some (a lot?) of the missing variance?"
The White/Waddell/Aylward/Halligan group is not an good one for patients.
On page 11 there's a note that Sharpe is the one writing the PACE TSC minutes, which makes some of his playing ignorant re actometers even funnier.
The fact that it was the DWP's Aylward who seemed to be the one to get Chris Clarke & AfME involved in PACE just shows what a disaster Clarke was. I get the impression that quite a lot of the large UK charities are run by Establishment sorts who all just chum along with each other and act as if they're doing decent things, rather than daring to challenge any of the real problems faced by those they claim to represent.
Last edited:
Is that "not" intended? It seems "de trop".
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Agreed. I think it negates the intended argument?
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Interesting. Decided to read those, most of them are short emails.
I did not know Aylward had personally attended some of the meetings. The DWP wasn't just involved as an independent funder. (4671 - 18 03 2004 MA to PD White R.pdf).
It's clear that there is one driving motivation here and it's spelled out clearly: returning people to work. Hence the massive conflict of interest of the DWP having no other motivation, one that is completely indifferent to any other outcome.
I did not know Aylward had personally attended some of the meetings. The DWP wasn't just involved as an independent funder. (4671 - 18 03 2004 MA to PD White R.pdf).
It's clear that there is one driving motivation here and it's spelled out clearly: returning people to work. Hence the massive conflict of interest of the DWP having no other motivation, one that is completely indifferent to any other outcome.
Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks. Sometimes my typing fingers seem to have a life of their own. Edited now.