From the ME Association report of the meeting:
What is being disputed is the undue prominence given to (putative) psycho-social factors, despite the clear lack of methodologically robust empirical clarification and validation of their claimed role in ME.
That has always been the problem, and still is.
The RCGP can no longer sweep that problem under the carpet by chanting 'biopsychosocial'.
Yeah, I am suspicious they are just mouthing the right words.
Invoking the biopsychosocial principle or model does not automatically validate any specific diagnostic, causal, or therapeutic claim made in its name. Each claim (hypothesis) still needs to be empirically validated in its own right.However, there were some differences of opinion, in particular the use of the term biopsychosocial. The RCGP explained that this is now widely used in primary care in relation to almost all illnesses they treat because GPs take a holistic view and often have to deal with social, psychological and medical consequences.
What is being disputed is the undue prominence given to (putative) psycho-social factors, despite the clear lack of methodologically robust empirical clarification and validation of their claimed role in ME.
That has always been the problem, and still is.
The RCGP can no longer sweep that problem under the carpet by chanting 'biopsychosocial'.
Might be worth getting them to clarify what they mean by 'medical'.The RCGP accepted that ME/CFS is a medical condition.
Yeah, I am suspicious they are just mouthing the right words.