Keele University seeks CFS patients for new study – lead researcher Carolyn Chew-Graham
A word of advice/warning:
https://www.keele.ac.uk/pchs/newsan...thchronicfatiguesyndromeneededfornewstudy.php
If anyone is thinking of responding to the above request for CFS patients to participate in this new study it’s worth bearing in mind the following about the lead researcher Professor Carolyn Chew-Graham:
Perhaps Professor Chew-Graham, as a working GP, had a bad experience herself with a ‘MUS’ patient, or possibly with more than one. But if so, she shouldn't let her personal opinions bias her academic work. Wouldn’t there be an outcry if any other patient group or other identifiable group was referred to in this way? Just imagine if comments like this 'stomach churn' quote were used to describe the effect of cancer patients or schizophrenia patients on their doctors.
A professor in her position should be well aware that the NHS budget is well over £100 billion, so IF ‘MUS’ costs the NHS £3 billion then that would be less than 3% of the NHS budget, not 10% or 11%. It is incorrect to indicate that MUS represents 10% or 11% of the total spend of the NHS, when, from the Bermingham et al paper figure, it would actually represent less than 3%. Is simple maths beyond her?
A word of advice/warning:
https://www.keele.ac.uk/pchs/newsan...thchronicfatiguesyndromeneededfornewstudy.php
If anyone is thinking of responding to the above request for CFS patients to participate in this new study it’s worth bearing in mind the following about the lead researcher Professor Carolyn Chew-Graham:
- She co-chaired the JCPMH (Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health) flawed and discriminatory ‘Guidelines for Commissioners of services for people with medically unexplained symptoms’ - https://www.jcpmh.info/wp-content/uploads/jcpmh-mus-guide.pdf - which in Table 1 entitled “ Functional somatic syndromes by specialty” on page 6 lists CFS and ME as functional syndromes.
- The JCPMH Guidance seems to present a one-sided/stigmatizing view of ‘MUS’ patients (therefore including CFS/ME patients) on page 9, where the authors appear to ‘cherry-pick’ views and opinions from several qualitative studies, including a study by Professor Chew-Graham herself.
- The JCPMH Guidance identifies women as the prevalent group (page 6), thus particularly stigmatizing women in my opinion.
- Professor Chew-Graham has repeatedly selected or ‘cherry-picked’ one particularly stigmatizing/offensive comment expressed by a single GP in one of her studies to describe the impact that MUS patients have on their doctors, presenting them as a source of stress and frustration for clinicians. She has done this:
- on a Keele University blog page - http://primarycarekeele.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/mus-guidelines.html,
- in this presentationCommissioning guidance for Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS)(see page 10 of 20) to leading practitioners at this conference - https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/...t-improving-support-somatic-symptom-disorder/ see also http://www.healthcareconferencesuk.co.uk/news/medically-unexplained-symptoms
- In this 2017 published paper - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325626/
- In this Helen Lester Memorial Lecture -
Perhaps Professor Chew-Graham, as a working GP, had a bad experience herself with a ‘MUS’ patient, or possibly with more than one. But if so, she shouldn't let her personal opinions bias her academic work. Wouldn’t there be an outcry if any other patient group or other identifiable group was referred to in this way? Just imagine if comments like this 'stomach churn' quote were used to describe the effect of cancer patients or schizophrenia patients on their doctors.
- Professor Chew-Graham and others met with Simon Wessely to discuss the development of the JCPMH Guidelines - Royal College of Psychiatrists Royal College of General Practitioners .
- As co-chair of the JCPMH MUS Guidance document Professor Chew-Graham should have been clear about the finding of the Bermingham et al paper that ‘MUS’ costs the NHS around 10% of that part of the NHS budget that is spent on working age people, but instead she ambiguously presented and/or misrepresented the cost of MUS to the NHS in:
- her blog - http://primarycarekeele.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/mus-guidelines.html
- this presentation - Commissioning guidance for Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS) - where she indicates that MUS represents 11% of the NHS budget.
- this 2017 published paper - http://bjgp.org/content/67/656/106 again - "11% of total NHS spend”
A professor in her position should be well aware that the NHS budget is well over £100 billion, so IF ‘MUS’ costs the NHS £3 billion then that would be less than 3% of the NHS budget, not 10% or 11%. It is incorrect to indicate that MUS represents 10% or 11% of the total spend of the NHS, when, from the Bermingham et al paper figure, it would actually represent less than 3%. Is simple maths beyond her?
- Professor Chew-Graham was involved with the FINE trial – see David Tuller’s blog on this - http://www.virology.ws/2015/11/09/t...-sister-trial-been-disappeared-and-forgotten/