Advertisement

Three Approaches to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada: Lessons for Democratic Policy

Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 16)

Abstract

Decisions about diagnostic categories through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a central type of informal policy-making which affect the scope of publicly-regulated health services and directions for future research. We examine the development of three diverse sets of CPGs for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia in order to examine diverse approaches to the development of such guidelines by medical professionals and other ‘experts’ in concert with inputs from the public, particularly those affected by the disease condition. We argue that the CPGs formulated for CFS in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada reflect three contrasting modes of policy development, and that the differential levels of acceptance of these guidelines by a range of relevant parties provide guidance as to which mode of policy development is likely to be most effective and acceptable particularly in the domain of controversial or contested domains within medicine.

Keywords

Policy Chronic fatigue syndrome Clinical practice guidelines 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-Making and Liberal Democracy”. We thank several Australian clinicians for access to their personal archives, interviews, and informal feedback, and Jason Grossman for assistance with background research relating to submissions to the Australian policymaking process.

References

  1. Amory, C. 1989. The best and worst of everything. Parade, January 1, 6.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 2001. Time to weed the CPG garden (editorial). Canadian Medical Association Journal 165: 141.Google Scholar
  3. Aronowitz, Robert A. 1998. Making sense of illness: Science, society and disease. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aronowitz, Robert A. 2001. When do symptoms become a disease? Annals of Internal Medicine 134(Suppl): 803–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen, Shelley, and Antony B. Zwi. 2005. Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: A framework for action. PLoS Medicine 2: e166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant, Jane. 2005. A review—The ME/CFS Canadian guidelines. http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=663#newspost. Accessed 17 Mar 2014.
  7. Carruthers, Bruce M., et al. 2003. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Clinical working case definition, diagnostic and treatment protocols. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 11: 7–115.Google Scholar
  8. Chassin, M.R. 1990. Practice guidelines: Best hope for quality improvement in the 1990s. Journal of Occupational Medicine 32: 1199–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, Andrew. 1886. Some observations concerning what is called neurasthenia. Lancet i:1–2.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, Charles, Andrew Green, and David Hunter. 1999. Health sector reform and the interpretation of policy context. Health Policy 47: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott, Heather, and Jennie Popay. 2000. How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilization and local NHS policy making. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54: 461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Field, Marilyn J., and Kathleen N. Lohr (eds.). 1990. Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, Anthony. 1987. Nine theses on the future of sociology. In Social theory and modern sociology, ed. Anthony Giddens, 22–52. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, Ian D., et al. 2001. What is the quality of drug therapy clinical practice guidelines in Canada? Canadian Medical Association Journal 165: 157–163.Google Scholar
  15. Grimshaw, J., et al. 1995. Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines. Quality in Health Care 4: 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gundersen, Linda. 2000. The effect of clinical practice guidelines on variations in care. Annals of Internal Medicine 133: 317–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holland, R. 1988. Is it nobler in the yuppie mind to suffer the slings of EBV? Medical Post (Canada), November 1, 12.Google Scholar
  18. Holmes, Gary P., et al. 1988. Chronic fatigue syndrome: A working case definition. Annals of Internal Medicine 108: 3873–3879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kruesi, M.J., J. Dale, and S.E. Straus. 1989. Psychiatric diagnoses in patients who have the chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 50: 53–56.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, Steven J. 2001. Further disquiet on the guidelines front. Canadian Medical Association Journal 165: 180–181.Google Scholar
  21. Loblay, Robert H., for the Clinical and Laboratory Practices Committee, Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy. 1994. Diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome. Royal Australasian College of Physicians Fellowship Affairs 13: 27–31.Google Scholar
  22. Manu, P., T.J. Lane, and D.A. Matthews. 1988a. The frequency of the chronic fatigue syndrome in patients with symptoms of persistent fatigue. Annals of Internal Medicine 109: 554–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manu, P., D.A. Matthews, and T.J. Lane. 1988b. The mental health of patients with a chief complaint of chronic fatigue: A prospective evaluation and follow-up. Archives of Internal Medicine 148: 2213–2217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCormack, James, et al. 2002. Assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166: 168.Google Scholar
  25. ME/CFS Australia (SA). 2003. Canada leads the world with a medical milestone. Talking Point, issue 1. http://sacfs.asn.au/publications/talking_point/2003/issue_1/canada.htm. Accessed 17 Mar 2014.
  26. ME/CFS Charities Alliance. 1996. Response. http://www.cfs-news.org/rcp-me.htm. Accessed 17 Mar 2014.
  27. Montague, Sally and Malcolm Hooper. 2001. Concerns about the forthcoming UK Chief Medical Officer’s report on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), notably the intention to advise clinicians that only limited investigations are necessary. http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/comments_on_advice_given_%28by_a_member_of_the_Key_Group%29.htm. Accessed 19 Mar 2014.
  28. National Health, and Medical Research Council. 1995. Guidelines for the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC.Google Scholar
  29. National ME/FM Action Network. 2002. News release: Canada leads the world with a clinical definition for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). http://www.cfids-cab.org/cfs-inform/CFS.case.def/me.cfs.canadian.def03.txt. Accessed 19 Mar 2014.
  30. National Task Force on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome, and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. 1994. Report. Bristol: Westcare supported by the UK Department of Health.Google Scholar
  31. Pare, D.S., and M.D. Freed. 1995. Clinical practice guidelines for quality patient outcomes. Nursing Clinics of North America 30: 183–196.Google Scholar
  32. Royal Colleges of Physicians, and Psychiatrists and General Practitioners. 1996. Chronic fatigue syndrome: Report of a joint working group of the royal colleges of physicians, psychiatrists and general practitioners. London: Royal College of Physicians.Google Scholar
  33. Sharpe, M.C., et al. 1991. A report—chronic fatigue syndrome: Guidelines for research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 84: 118–121.Google Scholar
  34. Shorter, Edward. 2008. From paralysis to fatigue: A history of psychosomatic illness in the modern era. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. Sleator, Alex. 1998. Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME: UK House of Commons research paper 98/107. www.parliament.briefing-papers/RP98-107.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2014.
  36. Swartz, M.N. 1988. The chronic fatigue syndrome—One entity or many? New England Journal of Medicine 319: 1726–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toulkidis, Victoria, produced by a Working Group convened under the auspices of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, et al. 2002. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Medical Journal of Australia 176(S): 17–55.Google Scholar
  38. UK Parliamentary Group on Scientific Research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. 2006. Inquiry into the status of CFS/ME and research into causes and treatment. http://erythos.com/gibsonenquiry/Report.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2014.
  39. Weiss, Carol H. 1979. The many meanings of research utilisation. Public Administration Review 39: 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wensing, M., T. van der Weijden, and R. Grol. 1998. Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: Which interventions are effective? British Journal of General Practice 48: 991–997.Google Scholar
  41. Wessely, Simon. 1994. The history of chronic fatigue syndrome. In Chronic fatigue syndrome, ed. S. Straus, 41–82. New York: Mark Dekker.Google Scholar
  42. World Health Organization [WHO]. n.d. International Classification of Diseases (ICD10) Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of HumanitiesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations