Decisions about diagnostic categories through clinical practice\u00a0guidelines (CPGs) represent a central type of informal policy-making\u00a0which affect the scope of publicly-regulated health services and\u00a0directions for future research. We examine the development of three\u00a0diverse sets of CPGs for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in the United\u00a0Kingdom, Canada, and Australia in order to examine diverse approaches to\u00a0the development of such guidelines by medical professionals and other\u00a0‘experts’ in concert with inputs from the public, particularly those\u00a0affected by the disease condition.<\/p>\n
We argue that the CPGs formulated for\u00a0CFS in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada reflect three\u00a0contrasting modes of policy development, and that the differential\u00a0levels of acceptance of these guidelines by a range of relevant parties\u00a0provide guidance as to which mode of policy development is likely to be\u00a0most effective and acceptable particularly in the domain of\u00a0controversial or contested domains within medicine.<\/p>\n
Three approaches to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada: Lessons for democratic policy<\/a>, by Rachel A. Ankeny, Fiona J. Mackenzie in<\/span> Big Picture Bioethics: Developing Democratic Policy\u00a0(<\/em>Chapter in: Contested Domains,<\/em> Part IV.\u00a0(The International Library of Ethics, Vol. 16. pp 227-243)\u00a0July 28, 2016<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Research abstract: Decisions about diagnostic categories through clinical practice\u00a0guidelines (CPGs) represent a central type of informal policy-making\u00a0which affect the scope of publicly-regulated health services and\u00a0directions for future research. We examine the development of three\u00a0diverse sets of CPGs for chronic fatigue … Continue reading