President's column: Prescriptive Authority--moving toward a new clinical psychology?

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Beutler
2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Babińska ◽  
Michal Bilewicz

AbstractThe problem of extended fusion and identification can be approached from a diachronic perspective. Based on our own research, as well as findings from the fields of social, political, and clinical psychology, we argue that the way contemporary emotional events shape local fusion is similar to the way in which historical experiences shape extended fusion. We propose a reciprocal process in which historical events shape contemporary identities, whereas contemporary identities shape interpretations of past traumas.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey P. Kramer ◽  
Douglas A. Bernstein ◽  
Vicky Phares
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Andrew Page ◽  
Werner Stritzke
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich W. Ebner-Priemer ◽  
Timothy J. Trull

Convergent experimental data, autobiographical studies, and investigations on daily life have all demonstrated that gathering information retrospectively is a highly dubious methodology. Retrospection is subject to multiple systematic distortions (i.e., affective valence effect, mood congruent memory effect, duration neglect; peak end rule) as it is based on (often biased) storage and recollection of memories of the original experience or the behavior that are of interest. The method of choice to circumvent these biases is the use of electronic diaries to collect self-reported symptoms, behaviors, or physiological processes in real time. Different terms have been used for this kind of methodology: ambulatory assessment, ecological momentary assessment, experience sampling method, and real-time data capture. Even though the terms differ, they have in common the use of computer-assisted methodology to assess self-reported symptoms, behaviors, or physiological processes, while the participant undergoes normal daily activities. In this review we discuss the main features and advantages of ambulatory assessment regarding clinical psychology and psychiatry: (a) the use of realtime assessment to circumvent biased recollection, (b) assessment in real life to enhance generalizability, (c) repeated assessment to investigate within person processes, (d) multimodal assessment, including psychological, physiological and behavioral data, (e) the opportunity to assess and investigate context-specific relationships, and (f) the possibility of giving feedback in real time. Using prototypic examples from the literature of clinical psychology and psychiatry, we demonstrate that ambulatory assessment can answer specific research questions better than laboratory or questionnaire studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document