Search results

It may, or, equally, may not be of interest that rheumatoid arthritis was mentioned by Arthur Cott in 1985 in the Context of "hurts" versus "harms". So this question has been at the heart of the "illness behaviour model" since the outset. Shortly after discussing lower back pain and chest...

Yes. Pilowsky's 1969 AIB was defined as "the persistence of an inappropriate or maladaptive mode of perceiving, evaluating and acting in relation to one's own state of health, despite the fact that a doctor has offered a reasonably lucid explanation of the nature of the illness and the...

Precisely. Unless they are being much more clever than we can imagine, which seems unlikely, the whole basis of this needs close scrutiny.

"If the doctor told you he could find nothing wrong with you, would you believe him?" I only ask because this seems to be a question on the Illness Behaviour Questionnaire which Waddell seemed to be using in 1989 for his biopsychosocial approach. I think I would tend to reply that, unless I...

That "uniquely" provides scope for different interpretations.

Like others I am having difficulty reading these papers and will need to look again. That is not a criticism. You know what we are like. However the work is very interesting . In view of the "origins in Waddell's thinking" in paper 4, I have done further research and have modified my views...

Ah, but his specialty (EDIT is) infectious diseases, and he has chosen the realm of psychiatry.

I have not yet got very far into this , and I don't want to be picky, but there seems to be some uncertainty in respect of Waddell's formative role. The issue of lower back pain being treated with a BPS model including exercise is specifically addressed in 1985 by Arthur Cott of McMaster in...

Has he ever indicated at what point in his recovery he was fit to return to work? That must be a key point in recovery. One would imagine it must have been before he went on holiday.

Did he supply the title? Probably not. It was probably the sub-editor's task. But what does "recovery is possible" mean.? It could seem to mean anyone can recover if they act correctly. If they fail to recover it will be their fault. Perhaps he needs to have words with the Grauniad.

It reminds me of the original 1959 paper by Acheson, where he said something to the effect that there would undoubtedly be cases arising in the community, but if they didn't have clear diagnosable neurological symptoms they should be regarded as hysteria.

I tend to agree but I think the "Wessely school" has been used for a long time. Was it initiated by Margaret Williams? I prefer "Maudsley/Oxford schools", at least until we get to the bottom of how they came to be developing the same ideas at the same time. Both seem to be developments of the...

I don't think it can be right that Aylward introduced Wessely to BPS thoughts. The two letters in the National Archives from, from memory, 1992 and 1993 do not suggest that sort of relationship at that time. Meanwhile the 1989 paper on CBT abd GET suggests other sources. There was already a well...

I find it interesting that David Marks appears not to have found reference in the works of the WS, Waddell and Aylward to Arthur Cott and his Behavioural Medicine Unit at St Josephs Hospital, Hamilton, in association with McMaster. I was beginning to think I had just not looked hard enough.

In the book there is a rather interesting footnote to Arthur Cott's paper on p85. The model, procedures and data presented in this paper were developed and collected over a ten year period at the Behavioural Medicine Unit, St Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. During this time, we...

Probably people who did not keep up with the times in their views of Eysenck.

Can we be sure that "multidimensional" is not also intended to apply to "health"? Perhaps we do have multidimensional health.

The linguistic problems seem odd. "May" indicates conditionality. Surely it is incumbent upon researchers to indicate in what conditions it "is".

It does seem strange that ME is being discussed in these terms when what might have been the germinal paper on the subject, published in 1986, from a paper delivered at a conference in 1985, contained this Contraindications; "hurt" versus "harm". One of the most frequent, serious, and major...

Well, it worked for Darwin didn't it? Oh. No. I forgot. It didn't.