Should Psychologists Be Granted Prescription Privileges? A Review of the Prescription Privilege Debate for Psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The debate over whether clinical psychologists should be granted the right to prescribe psychoactive medication has received considerable attention over the last 2 decades in the US, but there has been relatively little discussion of this controversial topic among Canadian mental health professionals, namely psychologists and psychiatrists. Proponents of prescription privileges (PPs), including the American Psychological Association (APA), argue that psychologists do not and cannot function as independent professionals because the medical profession places many restrictions on their practice. It is believed that PPs would help circumvent professional psychology's impending marginalization by increasing psychology's scope of practice. Proponents also argue that PPs would enhance mental health services by increasing public access to professionals who can prescribe. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to inform psychiatrists about the major arguments presented for and against PPs for psychologists and to discuss the major implications of PPs for both professional psychology and psychiatry. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of relevant articles published from 1980 to the present appearing on Psychlit and Medline databases, using "prescription privileges" and "psychologists" as search titles. CONCLUSION: Although proponents present several compelling arguments in favour of PPs for psychologists, pilot projects relating to feasibility and efficacy are either sparse or incomplete. Thus, it is too soon to tell whether PPs could or should be pursued. Clearly, more research is needed before we conclude that PPs for psychologists are a safe and necessary solution to psychology's alleged impending marginalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".