Prescriptive authority: Psychologists' abridged training relative to other professions' training
Albeit psychologists were granted prescription authority in two states over a decade ago and in three states in recent years, the controversy over prescriptive authority persists within the profession and remains a concern of diverse stakeholders. The literature provides minimal research on the adeq...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Clinical psychology (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2020-03, Vol.27 (1), p.n/a |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Albeit psychologists were granted prescription authority in two states over a decade ago and in three states in recent years, the controversy over prescriptive authority persists within the profession and remains a concern of diverse stakeholders. The literature provides minimal research on the adequacy of psychopharmacology training programs and how commensurate psychologists† training is with other prescribers† training. Comparing psychopharmacology training for psychologists to other prescribing professionals' training reveals psychologists receive fewer didactic training hours in foundational sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and pathophysiology) and fewer clinical training hours directly related to prescribing and managing medications. Implications of these findings and legal and regulatory cautions are discussed along with recommendations for future research directions.
Public Health Significance
Psychologists' relatively abbreviated training to prescribe raises public health concerns about how potential gaps in learning and supervised experience affects the quality of care delivered. The risk of adverse effects of short cuts in training is likely greatest with more vulnerable and ill patient populations. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0969-5893 1468-2850 |