MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020957103 · doi:10.1037/h0086999

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)PsychologyMedical prescriptionPsychoanalysisPsychotherapistLawPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207