Collaborative Prescribing Rights for Psychologists: The New Zealand Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The circulation in 2007 of a Ministry of Health consultation paper focusing on the extension of collaborative prescribing rights to non-medical professionals has again brought the issue of psychologist prescribing into sharp relief. In the context of mental health workforce shortfalls there has been a slow expansion of psychologists prescribing in America. Closer to home, the Australian Psychological Society has recently completed a survey amongst members and developed a proposal for psychologists to prescribe. In light of these developments, and the Ministry of Health initiated discussion of collaborative prescribing, it seemed pertinent that New Zealand psychologists review their position on this issue. A survey of New Zealand psychologists was undertaken to obtain local perspectives of collaborative prescribing. A small majority of the 571 respondents indicated that they supported the idea of collaborative prescribing, and saw a need for it at least in some areas of health care. Psychologists providing clinical services indicated that collaborative prescribing could be potentially useful in their practice. Several arguments for and against prescribing were considered important, but the impact of collaborative prescribing on the nature of psychology as a profession raised the most concern. Keywords: psychology, prescribing, medication, collaboration, survey ********** The issue of non-medical professionals in New Zealand undertaking prescribing activities has recently became more salient with the Ministry of Health (Moll) circulating a consultation paper entitled, Enabling the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill to Allow for the Development of Collaborative Prescribing (Ministry of Health, 2006). This paper invited consideration of the need for collaborative prescribing, potential models/systems, and what skills practitioners might require. These are difficult questions for the New Zealand psychology community to answer as we are somewhat behind our international counterparts in developing a position on collaborative prescribing. Multiple surveys regarding the extension of prescribing privileges to psychologists have been conducted within the United States over the last three decades (Baird, 2007; Fagan, Ax, Liss, Resnick, & Moody, 2007; Fagan et al., 2004; Grandin & Blackmore, 2006; Sammons, Gorny, Zinner, & Allen, 2000; Walters, 2001). Legislation supporting psychologists prescribing has been introduced in New Mexico and Louisiana, and is under consideration in several other states. The Australian Psychological Society (APS, 2007) has also conducted a survey of its members. Finding that the majority of respondents supported prescribing in principle, the APS is now developing a proposal for the training and registration of prescribing psychologists. The United Kingdom and Canada have yet to canvas the views of their psychology communities, but have at least entered into the debate (e.g., Lavoie & Barone, 2006). Apart from a survey of 36 New Zealand psychologists published in 1995 by the NZ Clinical Psychologist, little attention has been given to the arguments for and against collaborative prescribing in New Zealand. Meeting mental health needs is a key consideration for all communities currently introducing or considering introducing prescribing psychologists (Lavoie & Barone, 2006; Norfleet, 2002; Price, 2008; Westra, Eastwood, Bouffard, & Gerritsen, 2006). A potential shortage of psychiatry services prompted the APS to investigate the views of their membership on this topic (APS Prescription Rights Working Group, 2007). APS respondents ranked increased access to prescribing professional, particularly in areas with currently poor access to psychiatrists as the number one reason for training prescribing psychologists. Second to this was the argument that prescribing psychologists could provide more effective assessment, treatment, and continuity of care than was currently available. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».