The care of younger children (5–11 years) with CFS/ME. A qualitative study comparing families’, teachers’ and clinicians’ perspectives’, 2020, Crawley

Title including weird quote, “The child’s got a complete circle around him ”. The care of younger children (5–11 years) with CFS/ME. A qualitative study comparing families’, teachers’ and clinicians’ perspectives’

Open access, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hsc.13029

 

I have been trying to find info on EXPLORER; a number of page links seem to have been removed.
Have put what I have found so far here:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/explo...-cfs-me-amberly-brigden-esther-crawley.15480/

 

That will only happen when rubbish like the BPS ideology, behavioral manipulation and gaslighting of sick people and charlatans like Crawley get the hell out of the way and this complex problem is finally in the hands of people willing and able to help along with adequate resources and support from institutions.

The problem has opinions about how to solve a different problem that they make impossible to solve by being in the way. Go. Away. Interlopers.

 

Oh there you go using their contradictory claims against them. How vexatious!

 

It seems Crawley is churning out more and more of this non-quantitative social sciences garbage - the type of stuff you get from humanities academics. You can tell from the title alone with that silly quote.

 

Yes, there seems to be a change of focus. I think this is quite possibly EC's idea of taking on board the criticism that BPS includes the social and that previously the focus was on the psych aspect mostly.

The bio aspect being covered by the initial infection so that's already covered from the start in their minds.

For me the biggest point however about BPS therapy in general and all of the research, as applied to MUS, is it's claim to be an adjunct therapy for poorly treated conditions even as it seeks to set itself up as the primary treatment leading to what in the past was described as recovery and now improvement that qualifies as significant (although even that level of claim is faltering in their own descriptions)

Yet they persist with the illusion that their treatment (however the efficacy is described) is vital / necessary / useful and above all must continue to be offered (and further researched) because of the benefits which stem entirely from a false premise that can never yield the benefits they claim.

ETA: apologies. I think I went off the specific topic.