警告:心理健康专业证书和公众对临床护理的偏好。

IF 2.9 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
ACS Chemical Health & Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1037/amp0001219
Rebecca E Lubin, Gerald M Rosen, E Marie Parsons, Dylan A Gould, Michael W Otto
{"title":"警告:心理健康专业证书和公众对临床护理的偏好。","authors":"Rebecca E Lubin, Gerald M Rosen, E Marie Parsons, Dylan A Gould, Michael W Otto","doi":"10.1037/amp0001219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Appropriate training and continuing education for mental health professionals are designed to ensure that clinicians provide effective and ethical care. Mental health consumers may depend upon these credentials to judge the level of a professional's competence, but whether these activities and credentials provide a valid indicator of knowledge and skills is subject to debate. The present study was designed to examine preferences for mental health clinicians among potential consumers and factors that may inform these preferences, specifically comparing preferences for doctoral-level mental health clinicians and masters-level clinicians with and without specialty certification for treating anxiety symptoms. Cross-sectional assessment with self-report surveys (clinician preferences, prior mental health diagnosis and treatment, demographic characteristics, generalized anxiety symptoms, mental health literacy, and mental health stigma) was administered in two samples: a college student sample (<i>N</i> = 224; 71.9% female; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 19.1, <i>SD</i> = 1.5) and a sample of adults with chronic pain (<i>N</i> = 116; 74.1% female; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 43.8, <i>SD</i> = 13.8). The present study found that across both samples, therapists with a specialty certification were preferred over those without such credentials within each profession, and that certification status trumped professional standing such that certified masters-level clinicians were rated more highly than noncertified PhD-level clinicians. These findings are indicative of a schism between how the field of clinical psychology conceptualizes itself and how it is seen by its consumers. Implications of our findings for mental health consumers, clinicians, and professional organizations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":12,"journal":{"name":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Caveat emptor: Mental health specialty certifications and the public's preferences for clinical care.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca E Lubin, Gerald M Rosen, E Marie Parsons, Dylan A Gould, Michael W Otto\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Appropriate training and continuing education for mental health professionals are designed to ensure that clinicians provide effective and ethical care. Mental health consumers may depend upon these credentials to judge the level of a professional's competence, but whether these activities and credentials provide a valid indicator of knowledge and skills is subject to debate. The present study was designed to examine preferences for mental health clinicians among potential consumers and factors that may inform these preferences, specifically comparing preferences for doctoral-level mental health clinicians and masters-level clinicians with and without specialty certification for treating anxiety symptoms. Cross-sectional assessment with self-report surveys (clinician preferences, prior mental health diagnosis and treatment, demographic characteristics, generalized anxiety symptoms, mental health literacy, and mental health stigma) was administered in two samples: a college student sample (<i>N</i> = 224; 71.9% female; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 19.1, <i>SD</i> = 1.5) and a sample of adults with chronic pain (<i>N</i> = 116; 74.1% female; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 43.8, <i>SD</i> = 13.8). The present study found that across both samples, therapists with a specialty certification were preferred over those without such credentials within each profession, and that certification status trumped professional standing such that certified masters-level clinicians were rated more highly than noncertified PhD-level clinicians. These findings are indicative of a schism between how the field of clinical psychology conceptualizes itself and how it is seen by its consumers. Implications of our findings for mental health consumers, clinicians, and professional organizations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Chemical Health & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Chemical Health & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Chemical Health & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为精神卫生专业人员设计适当的培训和继续教育,以确保临床医生提供有效和合乎道德的护理。心理健康消费者可能依赖这些证书来判断专业人员的能力水平,但这些活动和证书是否提供了知识和技能的有效指标仍存在争议。本研究旨在考察潜在消费者对心理健康临床医生的偏好,以及可能影响这些偏好的因素,特别是比较有或没有专业认证的博士级心理健康临床医生和硕士级临床医生在治疗焦虑症状方面的偏好。采用自我报告调查(临床医生偏好、既往心理健康诊断和治疗、人口学特征、广泛性焦虑症状、心理健康素养和心理健康污名)对两个样本进行横断面评估:一个大学生样本(N = 224;71.9%的女性;Mage = 19.1, SD = 1.5)和患有慢性疼痛的成人样本(N = 116;74.1%的女性;法师= 43.8,SD = 13.8)。目前的研究发现,在两个样本中,有专业认证的治疗师比没有专业证书的治疗师更受青睐,并且认证地位胜过专业地位,因此认证的硕士水平的临床医生比未认证的博士水平的临床医生被评为更高。这些发现表明了临床心理学领域如何概念化自己和消费者如何看待它之间的分裂。我们的研究结果对心理健康消费者、临床医生和专业组织的意义进行了讨论。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Caveat emptor: Mental health specialty certifications and the public's preferences for clinical care.

Appropriate training and continuing education for mental health professionals are designed to ensure that clinicians provide effective and ethical care. Mental health consumers may depend upon these credentials to judge the level of a professional's competence, but whether these activities and credentials provide a valid indicator of knowledge and skills is subject to debate. The present study was designed to examine preferences for mental health clinicians among potential consumers and factors that may inform these preferences, specifically comparing preferences for doctoral-level mental health clinicians and masters-level clinicians with and without specialty certification for treating anxiety symptoms. Cross-sectional assessment with self-report surveys (clinician preferences, prior mental health diagnosis and treatment, demographic characteristics, generalized anxiety symptoms, mental health literacy, and mental health stigma) was administered in two samples: a college student sample (N = 224; 71.9% female; Mage = 19.1, SD = 1.5) and a sample of adults with chronic pain (N = 116; 74.1% female; Mage = 43.8, SD = 13.8). The present study found that across both samples, therapists with a specialty certification were preferred over those without such credentials within each profession, and that certification status trumped professional standing such that certified masters-level clinicians were rated more highly than noncertified PhD-level clinicians. These findings are indicative of a schism between how the field of clinical psychology conceptualizes itself and how it is seen by its consumers. Implications of our findings for mental health consumers, clinicians, and professional organizations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Chemical Health & Safety
ACS Chemical Health & Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety focuses on news, information, and ideas relating to issues and advances in chemical health and safety. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety covers up-to-the minute, in-depth views of safety issues ranging from OSHA and EPA regulations to the safe handling of hazardous waste, from the latest innovations in effective chemical hygiene practices to the courts'' most recent rulings on safety-related lawsuits. The Journal of Chemical Health and Safety presents real-world information that health, safety and environmental professionals and others responsible for the safety of their workplaces can put to use right away, identifying potential and developing safety concerns before they do real harm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信