Psychologists' perspectives on the diagnostic classification of mental disorders: results from the WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey.

This study examined psychologists' views and practices regarding diagnostic classification systems for mental and behavioral disorders so as to inform the development of the ICD-11 by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO and the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) conducted a multilingual survey of 2155 psychologists from 23 countries, recruited through their national psychological associations. Sixty percent of global psychologists routinely used a formal classification system, with ICD-10 used most frequently by 51% and DSM-IV by 44%. Psychologists viewed informing treatment decisions and facilitating communication as the most important purposes of classification, and preferred flexible diagnostic guidelines to strict criteria. Clinicians favorably evaluated most diagnostic categories, but identified a number of problematic diagnoses. Substantial percentages reported problems with crosscultural applicability and cultural bias, especially among psychologists outside the USA and Europe. Findings underscore the priority of clinical utility and professional and cultural differences in international psychology. Implications for ICD-11 development and dissemination are discussed.

Integrating psychologists into the Canadian health care system: the example of Australia.

Canada and Australia share many similarities in terms of demographics and the structure of their health systems; however, there has been a divergence in policy approaches to public funding of psychological care. Recent policy reforms in Australia have substantially increased community access to psychologists for evidence-based treatment for high prevalence disorders. In Canada, access remains limited with the vast majority of consultations occurring in the private sector, which is beyond the reach of many individuals due to cost considerations. With the recent launch of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, it is timely to reflect on the context of the current Canadian and Australian systems of psychological care. We argue that integrating psychologists into the publicly-funded primary care system in Canada would be feasible, beneficial for consumers, and cost-effective.

Collaboration between family physicians and psychologists: what do family physicians know about psychologists' work?

OBJECTIVE: To explore factors affecting collaboration between family physicians and psychologists. DESIGN: Mailed French-language survey. SETTING: Eastern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians practising in the area of the Réseau des services de santé en français de l'Est de l'Ontario. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' knowledge and understanding of the qualifications of psychologists and the regulations governing their profession; beliefs regarding the effectiveness of psychological treatments; views on the integration of psychologists into primary care; and factors affecting referrals to psychologists. RESULTS: Of 457 surveys sent, 118 were returned and analyzed (27% of surveys delivered). Most family physicians were well aware that there were evidence-based psychological interventions for mental health and personal difficulties, and some knew that psychological interventions could help with physical conditions. Physicians had some knowledge about the qualifications and training of psychologists. Many physicians reported being uncomfortable providing counseling themselves owing to time constraints, the perception that they were inadequately trained for such work, and personal preferences. The largest barrier to referring patients to psychologists was cost, since services were not covered by public health insurance. Some physicians were deterred from referring by previous experience of not receiving feedback on patients from psychologists. Increased access to clinical psychologists through collaborative care was considered a desirable goal for primary health care. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians know that there are evidence-based psychological interventions for mental health issues. Psychologists need to communicate better about their credentials and what they can offer, and share their professional opinions and recommendations on referred patients. Physicians would welcome practice-based psychological services and integrated interdisciplinary collaboration as recommended by the Kirby and Romanow commissions, but such collaboration is hampered by the lack of public health insurance coverage.

Family doctors and psychologists working together: doctors' and patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve primary care in the Canadian Primary Care Reform include integrating different professionals to the medical team. OBJECTIVE: This demonstration project explores the perceived impact on doctors and patients, of having family doctors and psychologists work together. SETTING: Two family practices of Eastern Ontario, Canada METHODS: Two board certified psychologists (one per practice) were integrated in the practices for 12 months. Psychologists conducted assessments, consultations and short-term treatments, as well as knowledge-transfer sessions for doctors. Outcome measures included referral patterns, patient outcomes, patient and provider satisfaction as well as doctors' billing. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-six participants received psychological care; most were women (68%) and between the ages of 25-64 (67%). Anxiety and depression were the most prevalent diagnoses. Reasons for referral included: psychological treatment (70%); emotional support and counselling (35%); clarification of diagnosis and case conceptualization (25%). Referrals could be for more than one reason. After intervention, 60% of patients had improvement on the outcome questionnaire-45 (OQ-45). Quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5D also improved (P < 0.001). Over 77% of patients reported increased confidence in handling their problems after treatment. Compared with their family doctor, patients felt the psychologist had more time and was better trained (75%) Doctors felt mental health problems were diagnosed more rapidly, patient care improved as well as their own knowledge of psychological management and treatment. Doctors felt it freed up their time and improved working conditions. Audit of the doctors' billing showed reduction in doctors' mental health billing. CONCLUSIONS: Having an on-site psychologist was highly satisfactory for patients and providers, resulting in improved patient care and outcomes.

Development of a global curriculum for professional psychology: implications of the Combined-Integrated model of doctoral training.

This article considers the development of a global training curriculum and qualification in professional psychology, with particular emphasis on the Combined-Integrated (C-I) model. The C-I model exposes professional psychology trainees to two or more of the practice areas (i.e., clinical, counseling, school/educational). The authors argue that the C-I approach is one that is well suited to the development of a global training curriculum due to its emphasis on broadly training psychologists as well as its respect for diversity and integration of various theoretical and professional orientations. A survey of training programs in 16 countries/regions on six continents found significant variation in training, minimal qualifications, and roles of the professional psychologist. The authors recommend that an international group of psychologists develop a regionally flexible, but common, training curriculum and qualification that would include a five- to six-year competency-based qualification. Ways in which the C-I training model may serve to integrate and globalize professional psychology are discussed.