From that it Sounds like someone who due to being from an area of training/expertise that has never had to deal properly with literatures or science thinks that the important part of any academic paper is the easy-read bit on impact that has nothing to do with the research and is just ad-lib suggestings to sell what might be great in the future and suggest it's applicable to the real world, but doesn't test it.
And has no clue it is reading the methodology in detail to see if the results are even worth reading and giving credence to or with x limitations.
And doesn't realise you don't just read a sunnily-worded paper that you like some terms in because they sound-alike to something you'd like to believe so can use them as a marketing strategy claiming that is 'the literature' agreeing with you.
....Except it isn't like she isn't involved in literature herself, so theoretically should know better? albeit her area seems to be biopsychosocial and coaching and organisational development.
Dr Nancy Doyle - Birkbeck, University of London
But who funding this or allowing people to be sent to it is both capable of doing the above/any different or cares enough to point it out? - and is also in a possible where they would be allowed to, because I bet it isn't that easy if your bosses don't want to hear you
This is where the infrastructure of having a strong charity landscape that isn't half-hearted about what is actually good for patients even if you do get many early days people saying they love these fops and the issue of people claiming recovery from LP and so on being tip-toed around. I'd be intrigued what is happenning regarding the other conditions mentioned like MS too and the responses of big organisations there. ...
I certainly think there is room where I'd say it needs charities to correct this.... Except that in itself seems like a trap insinuating endorsing the premise in itself as if these should exist if a few tweaks are made etc. and even if courses were harmless the topics chosen sound so driven by reversal of understanding of the condition the whole thing is unrectifiable - the issue is that she shouldn't be offering what she is offering. People aren't struggling with 'time management' if they have an energy limiting condition that makes them incredibly ill with PEM - they are struggling with managing an illness where your body becomes unmanageable (not 'poor management of it' which is where these strategies are harmful) and you can't make energy via the magic energy tree etc. So it isn't coaching of the ill people that is needed, but correct information being provided to employers etc.