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,