Comment on Wood

Abstract

The health psychology and behavioural medicine paradigms in the understanding of psychophysiological disorders have recently emerged in Britain (Carroll, 1992). This is very welcome but, regrettably, British family therapists have not had much of a role in these developments. Despite the fact that family events are increasingly associated with the development and course of many chronic childhood illnesses, for example, asthma and diabetes (Lask and Kirk, 1979;Lask and Matthew, 1979), the family has received very little attention in health psychology. Yet in order to understand the individual, it is increasingly recognized that we need to understand the relationships in which those individuals live.This comparative neglect of family factors in health psychology in Britain is worrying, but even more so is the comparative silence of family therapists and theorists. Family therapists have the opportunity to develop models for explaining how illness-related behaviours emerge within the family context, how that context co-evolves with the child's behaviour, and how the behaviours of the family members and the ill child become mutually maintaining over time. At present, I do not believe we have adequate understandings of the role of the family in chronic childhood illness.Thus, I welcome the paper by Wood. It is a scholarly attempt to develop and elaborate Minuchin's structural family theory and therapy and extrapolate it to a medical domain. Wood's Biobehavioral Family Model is a biopsychosocial approach to the assessment and treatment of childhood chronic illness or disability, set within a developmental framework. It is not my task here to critique the model, rather to comment on any parallel or complementary developments in Britain.The British scientific and philosophical traditions of empiricism and pragmatism are reflected in a research literature (reviewed by * Lecturer in the Psychology of Family Life, University of Reading, Whiteknights,

Celebrating the “good‐enough families”: Family challenges and resilience during global adversity

“…Ambiguous loss, which has been useful in studying specific phenomena, is now relevant for an overarching understanding of the current global experience of loss amid uncertainty. In this special issue, three papers selected the COVID‐pandemic as the main adversity (Ceberio, 2024; Medina Centeno, 2024; Pietromonaco & Overall, 2024), a fourth paper chose the war in Ukraine (Vetere & Shimwell, 2024), and a fifth paper examined the wildfires and climate change (Ferreira et al, 2024). Two papers did not focus on a specific type of adversity; however, one examined ways in which families could guard relational security when faced with adversities threatening attachment relationships (Berástegui & Pitillas, 2024).…”

“…Two articles focused on the experience of security, with authors using the attachment framework. One paper observed the experiences of professionals working with families that are vulnerable or face adversity (Berástegui & Pitillas, 2024) and the other explored the joining of Ukraine families and their UK hosts during the involuntary dislocation crisis (Vetere & Shimwell, 2024). The attachment theoretical framework initially developed by John Bowlby around the time of another global adversity, World War II, is especially relevant as the attachment system is activated in threatening conditions, such as the ones that global adversity provoked in the initial acute stages of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine crises.…”

“…The papers in this special issue provided insight on how adversities are never a universal equalizing experience but affect systems and individuals differently according to personal and contextual factors. The papers by Medina Centeno (2024) and Vetere and Shimwell (2024) focusing on the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, respectively, reflected on how the women, especially women with young children were the ones who were more strongly impacted by these two adverse events. Medina Centeno observed how Latin America's patriarchal culture continues to have power in families, as men remain peripheral to childcare and household responsibilities.…”

“…Families relied on both morphogenesis, their capacity to change as a system, and morphostasis, their ability to preserve stability. These two processes were evident, for instance, in the Homes for Ukraine programme showing the need of both hosts and guests having to negotiate rules and accommodate to one another, but also keeping what was important for each of them (Vetere & Shimwell, 2024). For Ukrainians, this was achieved through the local Ukraine community organizing meetings and get‐togethers that allowed to celebrate rituals, such as birthdays and anniversaries.…”

“…In a strong position, Medina Centeno (2024) advocated for the need to become indignant and situate personal and family malaises in context, in order to re‐establish a fruitful dialogue of family and community solidarity. Vetere and Shimwell (2024) discussed the importance of intervention/mediation by professionals in the process of hosting war refugees. According to these authors, it is legitimate to expect that participants hold different expectations of how they ought to live together as hosts and guests, underpinned by their respective and socially attuned manners of emotional expression.…”