"Subacute fatigue in primary care – two sides of the story" (corresponding author: Moss-Morris) 2019

Open Access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjhp.12361

 

Nothing says scientific rigor like "telephone interviews". And less than 20, even better.

 

In short: GPs are not much cop at telling patients they have a BPS illness.
(Us with blue cardigans do it much better of course.)

 

if we replace 'fatigue' with 'cough', 'itch', etc - this study remains equally meaningless,
because a common symptom can have a multitude of different biomedical causes.

do UK doctors still do differential diagnosis - or is that superceded by a BPS pamphlet,
and being sent home to think positive ?

 

More useless fun and frivolity from RM-M via SLaM, KCL, and NIHR. Again with the negative test results mean psychological attribution. This idea needs to be put down.

The main point of note I'm beginning to think is that it didn't cost much to do.
And can be massaged to mean just about anything you want.

I think what needs to happen is a better understanding of money allocation and it's real or imagined utility.
I wonder if it is real savings in the short run to psychologise fatigue or if that's an illusion. Certainly I think in the long term it cannot hold.

I think this is the main argument that matters to those who hold the purse for allocating money to those who then fund this sort of thing. The main concern of places like SLaM is of course continued existence and growth and making what they do seem like it's highly reputable.