MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068090987 · doi:10.1037/h0087025

Psychology as a Health-Care Profession: Implications for training.

2005· article· en· W2068090987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wolfgang Linden, Janine V. Moseley, Yvonne Erskine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyApplied psychologyTraining (meteorology)Health careMedical educationPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article places a magnifying glass on psychology's current training realities in the context of global health developments, particularly those of the Canadian health-care system. The authors argue that curriculum review and revision is needed to solidify psychology as a true health care profession; such a review should be proactive and must consider the likely changes in our overall health-care system. In preparing for anticipated changes in health care, it is proposed that curricula modifications be made to better reflect how psychology can contribute (in a broad fashion) to the health of Canadians. Two particular models for psychology's future role are offered for discussion: a) a modified, comprehensive parallel/vertical model that sees psychologists similar to other health-care providers; versus, b) a more innovative horizontal/cross-cutting model in which psychologists provide a unique blend of education, innovation, teaching, system consultation, prevention, as well as direct service provision, to patients with physical and mental health problems. The objectives of this article are to reflect upon the status quo of psychology's role in health care, upon the need to be prepared for massive changes in health care in Canada, and upon the desire for the profession of psychology to play a major role in these changes, including efforts to position itself in a more substantial role than was awarded to us in the past. This background then serves to enunciate recommendations for how professional training can and must change to map onto system changes and to maximize the potential of psychologists in the marketplace. As the title suggests, this article explicitly defines psychology as a Health-Care Profession rather than limiting it to a Mental Health-Care Profession. In fact, the position taken here is that any separation of physical health care from mental health care is artificial, counterproductive to the well-being of patients, regressive, and antithetical to modern psychology and medicine alike. Note also that this article is in part based upon the personal views and experiences of the authors, an academic clinical psychologist and two psychology graduate students, whose views have been shaped by many years of academic training and teaching, clinical supervision and research design, and - in the case of the first author - being involved in professional organizations and serving as a clinical program director. This article does not portend to describe 'just the facts; rather, it is often opinionated, it does not offer ready solutions, and its main purpose is to trigger a lively discourse. It imposes a magnifying glass on our current training realities in the context of more global health-care changes, and then reflects on the implications of this analysis for possible changes in university curricula. The practice of psychology cannot stay stagnant if the structure of health care is itself changing or else we are manufacturing our own erosion. Universities, therefore, need to be training psychologists to be ready for such changes. Given that, arguably, no perfect health-care system exists anywhere world-wide, changes will have to arise from vivid discussion and forethought, will require courage and political will, and will inevitably carry some risk for failure. Despite risks inevitably embodied in any change, it is posited here that the last thing we can afford to do at this time is to stick our heads in the sand while we let others decide our fate. Figure 1 illustrates where in the process of change we see the place of this article; in particular, we want to prevent the crossed-out option in this sequence model from becoming reality, and encourage proactive planning so as to maintain control over the future of our profession. The timing of this attempt at provoking discussion about a changed role for psychology is not at all accidental. There is widespread consensus among Canadians that the Canadian health-care system is in need of an overhaul. …

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.018
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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