[Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology in Transition - Review and Perspectives of the two Disciplines in Germany]. / Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie im Wandel ­ Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven der beiden Fächer in Deutschland.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Through the Master Plan for Medical Studies 2020 and the development of the National Competence-Based Learning Target Catalogue Medicine (NKLM), significant changes in university medicine were started. The aim of the study was a systematic analysis of the state and perspectives of the disciplines of medical psychology and sociology at the medical faculties in Germany. METHODOLOGY: An online survey was conducted on 5 topics (structure, teaching, research, care, perspectives). 46 departments and institutes of medical psychology and sociology were invited to the survey. RESULTS: 40 of the 46 contacted institutions have called up the online questionnaire, 35 have answered in full (return: 76.1%). 77% of the institutions are autonomous. In the median, the institutions have 15 employees (range: 1 to 149). 9 universities have established a model curriculum. More than half of the institutions use and train simulation patients. The main research priorities are clinical research, health care research, neuroscience and classical medical psychology or sociological research topics. The institutions receive primarily public funding and publish 19 publications (80% international, median) each year. Publication opportunities are considered "satisfactory" by 54% of institutions (2003: 44%), and by 29% as "very satisfactory" (2003: 21%). 9 out of 27 medical psychology institutes provide clinical services to patients and relatives with mental or chronic physical illness. Almost half of the institutions expect the Master Plan 2020 to further increase the relevance of the subjects. DISCUSSION: Since 2003 there has been a substantial increase in scientific staff, third-party funding and publications. The sites show a pronounced heterogeneity in terms of size and equipment, which leads to an imbalance in terms of teaching and research as well as clinical services. CONCLUSION: The subjects of medical psychology and medical sociology have developed very heterogeneously in terms of independence, size, equipment and possibilities at the various faculties in Germany. Therefore, it is very important in the future that the 2 disciplines intensify the dialogue with each other and also with other psychosocial disciplines in order to influence the current development regarding NKLM and Master Plan 2020 constructively. On the one hand, this calls for an expansion of disadvantaged institutions and a consolidation of the existing autonomous institutions.

Nuevas controversias en psicología sanitaria: un análisis libre de ruido / New controversies in Health Psychology: A noise free analysis

Durante los últimos años hemos asistido a la regulación del ejercicio sanitario de la Psicología. Nuevas figuras profesionales, como el Psicólogo General Sanitario, precipitan la confusión en competencias respecto a otras profesiones ya existentes en el ámbito, como el Psicólogo especialista en Psicología Clínica. Esta circunstancia ha motivado conflictos e incluso difusión de información distorsionada (o ruido) desde los sectores académico y colegial. El presente trabajo intenta realizar un análisis, libre de ruido, de las controversias actuales no resueltas que afectarán de forma inminente a la evolución de la Psicología Sanitaria. Entre ellas, los límites entre ambas profesiones, su articulación dentro del ámbito sanitario, la acreditación de nuevas especialidades sanitarias y la regulación del Grado en Psicología. Más allá del ruido generado desde intereses particulares, este trabajo pretende analizar las opciones, oportunidades y consecuencias de la toma de decisiones respecto a estas cuestiones aún inconclusas. Finalmente, se apuesta por el debate abierto y transparente entre todas las partes de la Psicología, como única solución a la encrucijada actual de la disciplina

Practice in health related issues in psychology has been increasingly regulated over the past few years in Spain. New professional profiles such as General Health Psychologist have caused confusion over skills and competences with other existing professionals such as Clinical Psychologists. This circumstance has sometimes caused conflicts among psychology professionals due to misinformation (noise) from academic and professional bodies (COP) over recent legal discussions. Our manuscript tries to carry out a noiseless analysis of the current unresolved controversies surrounding psychology in the health sector that would inevitably affect the development of psychology in this area in Spain. Issues such as the boundaries between both professions, their role and functions in the health sector, the accreditation of new health specialties and the regulation of the Psychology Degree arise. Leaving aside the noise generated by particular interests, this article tries to analyze the options, opportunities and consequences of decision making about these yet to be solved matters. Finally, we encourage all psychology sectors to engage in an open and transparent debate as the only way to achieve a real solution for the critical position of psychology in Spain

Sobre el futuro de la psicología clínica/sanitaria en España: controversias y vías de integración / On the future of Clinical/Health Psychology in Spain: controversies and ways of integration

La situación creada en el ámbito aplicado de la Psicología Clínica en España, con el errático intento de regularla por parte de los Ministerios de Sanidad y de Educación, a través de la creación de dos figuras paralelas de profesionales sanitarios: el Psicólogo Especialista en Psicología Clínica (PEPC) y el Psicólogo General sanitario (PGS) al margen del proceso de regulación de las propias Facultades de Psicología, impuesto por la necesidad de convergencia e integración en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior, ha dado lugar a una situación confusa y plagada de dificultades y controversias a las que nos vemos obligados a dar respuesta en la actualidad. En nuestro artículo analizamos y tratamos de encontrar soluciones para algunas de estas controversias, entre las que se encuentran las siguientes: Psicología Clínica versus Psicología Sanitaria, habilidades y competencias del PGS y del PEPC, la Psicología Clínica en Atención Primaria de Salud, los estudios del Grado en Psicología, la posible y necesaria integración entre el PGS y el PEPC, entre otros

The strange situation created in the applied field of Clinical Psychology in Spain, with the erratic attempt to adjust it by the Ministries of Health and Education, have given rise to two parallel figures of health professionals, the Specialist Psychologist in Clinical Psychology (PEPC) and the General Health Psychologist (PGS). Additionally, the process of regulation of the own Faculties of Psychology, imposed by the need for convergence and integration in the European Higher Education Area, has led to a confusing situation which faces numerous difficulties and controversies to which we are forced to respond today. In our article we analyze and try to find solutions to some of these controversies, such as Clinical Psychology versus Health Psychology, skills and competencies of the PGS and the PEPC, Clinical Psychology in Primary Health Care, the studies of the Degree in Psychology, and the possible and necessary integration between the PGS and the PEPC

Psychological medicine and the future of psychiatry.

Psychological medicine (liaison psychiatry) aims to integrate psychiatry into other areas of medicine. It is currently enjoying considerable expansion. The degree to which it can take advantage of this opportunity will be important not only for its own future, but also for the survival of psychiatry as a medical discipline.

A systematic review of psycho-oncology research in Chinese populations: emerging trends.

The burden of cancer in China is increasing with future psycho-oncological interventions crucial. A systematic review of psycho-oncology research in China was undertaken to assess quantity, design and target trends over time. Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science (1999-November Week 4, 2012) were searched. Inclusion criteria were: included cancer patients and/or partners or caregivers from resident Chinese populations (either at least 80% of participants are from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan); assessed psychological adjustment relating to cancer and published in English after 1 January 1999 and prior to 30 November 2012. In all, 208 articles met inclusion criteria. Of these: 52 were cross-sectional descriptive quantitative; 30 were cross-sectional descriptive qualitative; 27 were prospective descriptive quantitative; 2 were prospective descriptive qualitative; 18 assessed interventions; 79 presented instrument validation. Publications increased eightfold from 1999 to 2012. Most studies included patients (n = 195) with 11 articles focusing on caregivers and two on patient-caregiver dyads. The most common cancer studied was breast cancer. The psycho-oncology research effort in China is dramatically increasing. A focus on culturally relevant approaches to underpin the evaluation of empirically derived interventions is warranted; as is direction of efforts to other cancers such as lung and prostate.

Psicología Clínica y Psicología General Sanitaria: una aproximación constructiva / Clinical Psychology and Health General Psychology: a constructive approach

En el número anterior de esta revista, el Dr. Carrobles analizó, a la luz de la Ley General de Salud Pública (Ley 33/2011), las posibles controversias que podría suscitar el desarrollo de la nueva figura profesional del psicólogo general sanitario en el ámbito de la Psicología Sanitaria. Tras su revisión argumental sugiere que la mejor solución posible pasa por el reconocimiento de dos profesiones con equivalentes funciones clínicas y sanitarias pero con itinerario formativo diferente; a saber, el psicólogo general sanitario y el psicólogo especialista en Psicología Clínica. Tanto sus conclusiones como las premisas que las sostienen motivan este artículo de réplica, mediante el que intentamos contribuir a este necesario debate analizando en profundidad y detalle algunos aspectos que entendemos pueden generar confusión o representan premisas no lo suficientemente sólidas como para sostener las conclusiones del citado autor. Posteriormente se realiza una propuesta alternativa de integración de los profesionales sanitarios de la Psicología en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS) basado en la realidad sociocultural y legal de España (AU)

In the previous issue of this journal, Dr. Carrobles reviewed the role and status of the recently created figure of General Health Psychologist, after its recognition in the Ley General de Salud Pública (Ley 33/2011), in the area of psychological health care. This author concludes that the best solution for the integration of this new professional is that both clinical psychologists and general health psychologists should share similar clinical roles but with different training programs. Both the arguments and the conclusions have motivated this response. We try to contribute to the ongoing debate in our country about how to develop clinical psychology and the provision of psychological services in the National Health Service. This proposal is based in our specific social context and the legal framework we operate under

Psicólogo clínico (PIR) y psicólogo general sanitario, todos somos necesarios / The need for both clinical psychologists and general health psychologists

En un artículo anterior publicado en esta misma revista (Carrobles, 2012) hacíamos un extenso análisis de la situación actual en nuestro país de los programas de formación de los psicólogos especialistas en Psicología Clínica (PIR) y en Psicología General Sanitaria, tratando de mostrar las características de una y otra de estas especialidades y las ventajas e inconvenientes que la implantación de las mismas puede suponer para la práctica profesional de la Psicología en el ámbito sanitario. El artículo ha sido recientemente replicado por un grupo de psicólogos PIR (Sánchez Reales, Prado Abril y Aldaz Armendáriz, 2013), planteando algunas críticas al mismo y proponiendo un modelo de relación y de competencias para ambos profesionales muy distinto del sugerido por mí mismo. En el presente artículo, además de responder a las críticas que me hacen los autores, aprovecho el espacio y la ocasión para añadir nuevos argumentos y criterios para reforzar mi posición central en este tema, que no es otra que la de abogar por la autointegración profesional de la Psicología y por la extensión y la implantación social de nuestra profesión en el ámbito clínico y sanitario en nuestro país, donde tenemos aún mucho que aportar (AU)

In a previous article published in this journal (Carrobles, 2012) an extensive analysis was made of the current situation in our country of training programs for specialists in Clinical Psychology (PIR) and General Health Psychology, trying to show the characteristics of both and the advantages and disadvantages that the implementation of such programs can entail for the professional practice of psychology in the health sector. Recently a group of PIR Psychologists (Sánchez Reales, Prado Abril, & Aldaz Armendáriz, 2013) have responded to that article expressing some criticism and proposing an alternative model of relationship and skills for both professionals which differs substantially from the one I suggested. In this article, in addition to responding to the alleged criticisms, I take the opportunity to add new arguments and criteria to reinforce my central position on this issue, which is none other than advocating the self-integration of professional Psychology and the social implementation and expansion of our profession in both the clinical and health fields in our country, areas where we still have much to contribute

A integração da pesquisa e prática clínica em psicologia médica / The integration of research and clinical practice of medical psychology

Com a ampliação e a absorção dos psiquiatras pelo hospital geral, novos conceitos sobre a interação mente-corpo foram propostos e, atualmente, temos disponíveis campos de estudo que se intersectam e têm suas raízes na psicossomática, tais como a interconsulta psiquiátrica e a psicologia médica.Houve uma fase da medicina do século anterior na qual a estatística ainda não havia sido aperfeiçoada e absorvida pelos campos da saúde mental e até das neurociências.Necessitamos das pesquisas, com controles e homogeneidade, com grupos representativos e de diversos centros, para adotarmos referenciais clínicos e éticos. Mas ninguém discorda que cada indivíduo é único e singular, mesmo na sua relação com a doença ou na forma de adoecer.Por mais que busquemos a neutralidade científica, não podemos negligenciar o fato de que trabalhamos com ?mentes vivas?, e a isso se subordina qualquer metodologia.Buscamos a integração, e este é um ideal (no sentido de conceito médico), que tende a agregar, conciliar, investigar e se adaptar às demandas do paciente.Todo pesquisador sabe que não temos verdades eternas, lidamos com paradigmas ou modelos temporários e esta é nossa condição.

Medical psychology services in dutch general hospitals: state of the art developments and recommendations for the future.

In this article an overview is presented of the emergence of medical psychology in the care of somatically ill patients. The situation in the Netherlands can be considered as prototypical. For 60 years, clinical psychologists have been working in general, teaching and academic hospitals. Nowadays, they are an integrated non-medical specialism working in the medical setting of hospitals in the Netherlands, and are a full-member of the medical board. This paper discusses several topics: the position of the general hospital in the health care system in the Netherlands, the emergence of medical psychology in Dutch hospitals, the role of the professional association of medical psychologists, and the characteristics of patients seen by clinical psychologists. Following the discussion about the situation of medical psychology in other countries, recommendations are formulated for the further development of medical psychology in the Netherlands as well as in other countries.

Psycho-oncol

No disponible

No disponible

[Twenty-five years of psycho-oncology in New York: a retrospective]. / Vingt-cinq ans de pratique psycho-oncologique à New York: une rétrospective.

This article offers a retrospective overview of 25 years of implementation of psycho-oncology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center. It shows the ways and means used to obtain a progressive development of this sub-specialty for the purpose of improving patients' quality of life and helping professional teams wishing to offer integrated care to patients and families. It justifies the pragmatic approach adopted in the English-speaking world, which is also flexible and suited to the somatic realities of cancer. The role of all the various professionals care is highlighted, as is the parallel development of clinical research hand in hand with clinical practice in the field. This has enabled the determination of the prevalence psycho-pathologies in the field of cancer, and demonstrated the need for early screening, and the instatement and evaluation of various specific interventions. Today, psycho-oncology is considered as a natural component of supportive care, but it should continue to develop alongside other specialities in order to help patients and families to cope with cancer better, both during and after treatment.