Why psychology? An investigation of the training in psychological literacy in nursing, medicine, social work, counselling psychology, and clinical psychology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychology is the science of human behavior. Thus, service providers in the area of mental health should have a foundational knowledge of psychological science; but do they? To investigate this question university calendars and websites were systematically reviewed to ascertain how many psychology courses and related training is required by entry level degrees for nursing, social work, medicine, counselling psychology, and clinical psychology. Results clearly show that clinical psychology graduates take more courses in psychology and related training than any other group, followed by counselling psychology. It is possible to graduate without any exposure to psychology or mental health issues in some of the other professions including medicine, yet many people's first choice for many mental health issues is a family physician. The discussion focuses on the significant implications for an increasingly interprofessional field with the emergence of primary care networks and other forms of interprofessional collaboration.Keywords: psychological literacy, training, mental health services, health care policyResumeLa psychologie est la science du comportement humain. Ainsi, les fournisseurs de services en sante mentale devraient posseder une connaissance de base en psychologie, mais est-ce le cas ? Pour repondre a cette question, on a examine avec soin les programmes et les sites Web des universites pour determiner combien de cours en psychologie ou dans un domaine connexe devaient suivre les nouveaux inscrits en sciences infirmieres, en travail social, en medecine et en psychologie du counselling et en psychologie clinique. Les resultats montrent clairement que les diplomes en psychologie doivent suivre plus de cours en psychologie et dans des domaines connexes que tout autre groupe, suivis des etudiants en counselling. Dans certains domaines d'etudes, il est possible d'obtenir un diplome sans jamais suivre une formation en psychologie ou en sante mentale, dont la medecine, et pourtant le medecin de famille est la premiere personne vers laquelle les gens se tournent pour discuter d'un probleme de sante mentale. La discussion porte sur les repercussions importantes des connaissances interprofessionnelles, qui doivent s'accroitre, en raison de l'emergence des reseaux de soins primaires et d'autres formules de collaboration entre professions.Mots-cles : connaissances en psychologie, formation, services en sante mentale, politique sur les soins de sante.At least 20% of Canadians will have a mental health problem (Health Canada, 2002) at significant cost to the Canadian economy in lost (Stephens & Joubert, 2001) and impaired productivity (Dewa & Lin, 2000) and with many people not receiving treatment (Bijl et al., 2003; Cox, 2014; Drapeau, 2014; Kohn, Saxena, Levav, & Saraceno, 2004; Mojtabai & Olfson, 2006; Roberge, Fournier, Menear, & Duhoux, 2014) Yet public funding for mental health services (Block et al., 2008; Jacobs et al., 2008; Romanow & Marchildon, 2003) as well as private insurance coverage (Ekos, 2011; Hunsley, Lee, & Aubry, 1999; Nunes et al., 2014) remains an issue in Canada, so much so that it has been called a silent crisis (Cohen & Peachey, 2014).Mental health services are provided by a wide array of individuals, regulated and unregulated; so why should consumers choose a psychologist? Most members of the public do not recognize the differences between psychosocial health service providers (Bray, 2010). In fact, their first choice is usually a physician (Ekos, 2011; Janda, England, Lovejoy, & Drury, 1998), yet physicians often report that they have insufficient time to deal with mental health issues (Horwitz et al., 2007; Takhar, Haslam, Hobbs, & McAuley, 2010) as well as discomfort and lack of confidence (Boule & McSherry, 2002; Clarke & Polimeni-Walker, 2004; Gordon, 2012; Hodges, Inch, & Silver, 2001; Lindberg, Vergara, Wild-Wesley, & Gruman, 2006; Menahem, 2009; Takhar et al. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".