The group will work to develop guidance about Long Covid and how psychologists contribute to rehabilitation, treatment and support. Dr Faith Martin, one of the group leads, said: "Around 2 million adults are known to be living with Long Covid in the UK. It is vital that we work with experts by experience in creating good practice guidelines for psychology in work with people with Long Covid." The deadline for applications is Monday 7 October. LINK
There is just no way this is good for anyone suffering from LC. Basically paying 3x over for negative benefits: the losses from people being disabled, health care resources being spent foolishly anyway, then psychologists doing more work that brings nothing to compensate for the other 2, which they won't. One day this will be studied in economics academia, as a most extreme example of incompetence. It takes professionals to fail this hard. Like the difference between causing a disaster with a shovel, or a giant bulldozer filled with enough dynamite to take down a mountainside. I wouldn't bet much on this being studied in psychology, though. They clearly don't have the self-awareness for that. The individuals might, but the institutions. Ugh, the institutions. People love to point out to mobs as examples of crowds being less intelligent than individuals but damn do institutions deliver far more in that regard, but in a slow-moving and calculated way.
This doesn’t sound as clear as the me/cfs survey regarding ‘not thinking they can treat the condition’ and being about sorting out misinformation should people need to access psych support for other reasons. it mentions rehab etc clarification and detail in this is important it’s worrying this is happening at the same time as the me/cfs one but seems so different- not sure that’s coincidence?
I wonder if these are her publications: https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_self-management_intervention_for_Long_COVID https://formative.jmir.org/2022/10/e41410/ What's the point of this effort? The BPS are currently producing ME guidance. LC refers to a mishmash of different conditions; the term is of use principally as a stratifier. It doesn't need its own guideline.
If the Society is trying to do much the same as for ME/CFS then it should be a good thing. Their members may well be able to help and support some people. Ironically, I think psychologists who understand ME and LC could potentially be helpful to people really struggling with pacing, e.g. encouraging them to explore how priorities and guilt and obligations cut across it, and how they might learn to accommodate it. Pacing is bloody hard on everybody involved and has the potential to be destructive in relationships. But psychologists also need to know they have no role with those who're not seeking the therapeutic approaches they offer. In other words, ME and Long Covid are exactly the same as every other long term condition.
But they want to involve people living with it. They can't assume their experience is the same, or that their priorities will be the same as pw ME/CFS. People with Long Covid haven't lived through PACEgate either, so they may have different relationships with or views of the profession. (Second sentence edited slightly)
Hopefully some of the LC people with ME/CFS diagnosis will contact them to say they just need to have links in their LC guidance to the ME/CFS guidance where relevant and the two guidance groups can work together to prevent duplication.
We can only hope the contributing members won't be the same ones who wrote this stuff in the BPS Response to the NICE consultation on the Draft Guideline on Management of Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 in December 2020: https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/BPS Response to the NICE consultation on the Management of Long-Term Effects of Covid-19.pdf
Hmm - in 2022 the BPS appeared to be superglued to Rona Moss-Morris and her unevidenced ideology. The BPS needs one hell of a shift to come up to any kind of standard that would not endanger ME patients, whatever level of illness they are. .
There is another thread on here - bpswatch I think? it gives a good sense of how potentially it is an organisation with some strange things going on meaning (sounds familiar to the recent press release on royal college of physicians) ‘maybe’ there is an issue but I don’t think it’s all re: the members and don’t know how problematic/ rescuable as it’s just that one I’ve read so far. but it’s an important one to start doing the right thing I’m sure I saw the nice submission from them for the 2007 guidelines and it was flagging what it should have been re:concerns with that and everything behind it
Merged thread Vacancy: Assistant Psychologist for the BPS ME/CFS https://www.bps.org.uk/assistant-psychologist-bps-mecfs Good Practice guidelines for working with people with Long Covid Would you like to join a team of psychologists and experts by experience to help codevelop good practice guidelines for psychologists working with people with Long Covid? We are seeking expressions of interest for a role as an editorial assistant/project manager from graduate psychologists. Hours and role 26 days spread over up to 12 months See more information Application process Send a short CV (1-2 pages) including research experience and relevant work experience, and an additional short paragraph about why you are interested in the role. Include the name and email address of two referees. Please send your CV and paragraph, clearly labelling the subject header 'BPS Long Covid Assistant Psychologist EOI' to Julia Faulconbridge. Closing date: 6 June 2025 Provisional date for interview We would like you to start as soon as possible after all checks have been completed.
It seems to be mostly project management and a bit of what I would call «backoffice work». 200 hrs might be reasonable depending on how involved they are supposed to be in the actual development of the guidelines.
Just noting the large potential for confusion between the British Psychological Society and biopsychosocial (aka psychosomatic). Hopefully, and I think recently, one does not necessarily imply the other. Here is the thread on the ME/CFS Guidelines: UK: British Psychological Society survey on their planned new guidance on ME/CFS, deadline 9th October 2024
