MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2020957103 · doi:10.1037/h0086999

The Prescription Privilege Debate in Canada: The Voices of Today's and Tomorrow's Psychologists.

2004· article· en· W2020957103 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Edouard S. St-Pierre, William T. Melnyk

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCounseling Practices and Supervision
Établissements canadiensLakehead University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrivilege (computing)PsychologyMedical prescriptionPsychoanalysisPsychotherapistLawPolitical scienceMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Canadian psychology professionals (n = 591) and psychology students (n = 272) were asked for their opinions about prescription privileges for psychologists. A majority of respondents indicated that properly trained psychologists should be allowed to prescribe, and that the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) should advocate for such privileges. Few people felt that prescribing was theoretically or philosophically opposed to the field of psychology or that it would compromise psychological service delivery. Not surprisingly, clinical students were more likely than other psychology graduate students to indicate that they would seek prescription privileges if these were available. The prescription privilege debate in Canada has generated a surfeit of arguments for, and against, the movement. The debate has considered both the heritage of psychology and the future of psychology. The debate has also considered topics such as liability, professional competency, and ethical issues (e.g., Dozois & Dobson, 1995a, b; Hayes, Walser, & Follette, 1995; McCrea, Enman, & Pettifor, 1997; Pagliaro, 1995). It has even been questioned whether or not psychologists want prescription privileges in the first place (Dobson & Dozois, 2001). Glenn D. Walters (2001) discussed his meta-analysis of survey data on the issue of prescription privileges. He sampled 16 studies that tapped into the attitudes of psychological professionals as well as students. Walters found that respondents agreed that properly trained psychologists should be allowed to prescribe medication, a view that was especially strong among graduate students. Graduate students were also more likely than practicing psychologists to express an interest in seeking prescription privileges. Moreover, Walters found no clear consensus on a question of whether the American Psychological Association (APA) should advocate for prescription privileges. When the attitudes of practicing psychologists and graduate students were considered together, support for APA advocacy was close to evenly split. Graduate students, when considered separately, supported APA advocacy for prescription privileges. Walters articulated the possibility that medical professionals would train prescribing psychologists, a circumstance that he felt would open psychology up to assimilation by the medical field. He also expressed concern that psychologists, burdened with the required training to competently prescribe medications, would fail to develop and maintain expertise in the practice of psychotherapy. Nonetheless, according to the APA, jurisdictions in the United States have moved forward with the granting of prescription privileges to psychologists. For example, Louisiana recently became the second state in that country to gain a law authorizing properly trained psychologists to prescribe certain medications for the treatment of mental disorders. New Mexico enacted such legislation in 2002 (Daw, 2002). Canadians have also participated in this debate (e.g., Dobson & Dozois, 2001; Nussbaum, 2001). Specifically, Nussbaum debated some of Walters' (2001) conclusions. For example, Walters' meta-analysis led to the conclusion that a majority of students, but roughly half of practicing psychologists, were interested in seeking prescription privileges. Walters interpreted these finding as indicating a more general attitude of nonpursuit and nonsupport among practicing psychologists. Nussbaum argued that support from nearly half of practicing psychologists, while not a majority, was noteworthy. Moreover, Nussbaum argued that it should not be construed that practicing psychologists are unmotivated to seek prescription privileges. Instead, he proposed that many older more established psychologists might be less likely to pursue prescription privileges because they feel that the effort would provide little reward to them at mid-career. Nussbaum argued that while these professionals may not desire the privilege for themselves, they might recognize that prescription privileges could afford some advantage to their young students. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,760
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetCounseling Practices and SupervisionTravaux en français237 207