“Biopsychosocial approach” may be difficult in practice
This week a joint working group of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists, and General Practitioners in Britain issued a report on chronic fatigue syndrome.’ The report constitutes, arguably, the finest contemporary position statement in the field, and physicians and patients are well advised to read it, but it is sure to engender disagreement on both sides of the Atlantic.
The term chronic fatigue syndrome is relatively new. It first appeared in the 1988 proposal by the United States Centers for Disease Control to formalise a working case definition for symptoms that had been variously named and attributed to numerous causes for over two centuries. Through field testing, the case definition was revised and simplified in 1994. In essence, it classifies a constellation of prolonged and debilitat ing symptoms as worthy of medical attention and study (see box). Related case criteria were developed by consensus at Oxford in 199 .4 Neither the American nor the Oxford criteria assume the syndrome to be a single nosological entity. As the royal colleges’ report concludes, the term chronic fatigue syndrome is appropriate because it carries none of the inaccurate aetiological implications of the alternative acronyms-myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and immune dysfunction syndrome.
You can read the rest of this comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359057/pdf/bmj00562-0007.pdf
Source: Straus SE. Chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ. 1996 Oct 5;313(7061):831-2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359057/