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

Andy

Retired committee member
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’
Society needs to improve the care of children with complex needs. Guidelines recommend integrating care across health and educational settings, however, there is little research on whether this is achieved or how this can be done in practice. Our aim was to address this gap by examining how the care of children (aged 5–11 years) with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is shared across home, education and health settings, in order to generate recommendations for integrating care.

We undertook semi‐structured interviews with families (22 participants), teachers (11 participants) and healthcare providers (9 participants), analysing the data thematically and comparatively. Our analysis of the data was informed by a socio‐ecological perspective as we sought to understand the complexity of the relationships and systems around the child. The first theme focuses on the child (“individual level”); child‐centred care is seen as essential whilst acknowledging that the child has limited capacity to manage their own care. The second theme presents the distinct roles of parents, teachers and clinicians (“interpersonal and organisational levels”). The third describes how these three levels interact in the management of the child's care, in the context of the health and education systems and policies (“policy levels”). The fourth explores optimal ways to integrate care across home, school and clinical settings.

In conclusion, there is opportunity to support a child with complex health needs by targeting the systems around the child; parents, teachers and clinicians, as well as education and health policy that can enable shared‐care. Involving schools in assessment, communicating diagnosis across settings and using a stepped‐care approach to integrated care may be beneficial. Further work is needed to explore these recommendations, with attention to the policy factors that may act as barriers and enablers.
Open access, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hsc.13029
 
Society needs to improve the care of children with complex needs
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.
 
So this is what passes for novel research these days.

In the UK, the recommended behavioural treatments (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Graded Exercise Therapy and activity management) require the young person to actively monitor and regulate their behaviour (e.g. sleep routines, physical activity levels and taking medication as prescribed).
I thought the problem was that patients paid too much attention to these things in the first place?

And isn't monitoring and regulating physical activity levels just pacing?
 
So this is what passes for novel research these days.


I thought the problem was that patients paid too much attention to these things in the first place?

And isn't monitoring and regulating physical activity levels just pacing?
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom