Baker Timothy B, McFall Richard M, Shoham Varda
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Indiana University.
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008 Nov;9(2):67-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01036.x. Epub 2008 Nov 1.
The escalating costs of health care and other recent trends have made health care decisions of great societal import, with decision-making responsibility often being transferred from practitioners to health economists, health plans, and insurers. Health care decision making increasingly is guided by evidence that a treatment is efficacious, effective-disseminable, cost-effective, and scientifically plausible. Under these conditions of heightened cost concerns and institutional-economic decision making, psychologists are losing the opportunity to play a leadership role in mental and behavioral health care: Other types of practitioners are providing an increasing proportion of delivered treatment, and the use of psychiatric medication has increased dramatically relative to the provision of psychological interventions. Research has shown that numerous psychological interventions are efficacious, effective, and cost-effective. However, these interventions are used infrequently with patients who would benefit from them, in part because clinical psychologists have not made a convincing case for the use of these interventions (e.g., by supplying the data that decision makers need to support implementation of such interventions) and because clinical psychologists do not themselves use these interventions even when given the opportunity to do so. Clinical psychologists' failure to achieve a more significant impact on clinical and public health may be traced to their deep ambivalence about the role of science and their lack of adequate science training, which leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence, use assessment practices that have dubious psychometric support, and not use the interventions for which there is the strongest evidence of efficacy. Clinical psychology resembles medicine at a point in its history when practitioners were operating in a largely prescientific manner. Prior to the scientific reform of medicine in the early 1900s, physicians typically shared the attitudes of many of today's clinical psychologists, such as valuing personal experience over scientific research. Medicine was reformed, in large part, by a principled effort by the American Medical Association to increase the science base of medical school education. Substantial evidence shows that many clinical psychology doctoral training programs, especially PsyD and for-profit programs, do not uphold high standards for graduate admission, have high student-faculty ratios, deemphasize science in their training, and produce students who fail to apply or generate scientific knowledge. A promising strategy for improving the quality and clinical and public health impact of clinical psychology is through a new accreditation system that demands high-quality science training as a central feature of doctoral training in clinical psychology. Just as strengthening training standards in medicine markedly enhanced the quality of health care, improved training standards in clinical psychology will enhance health and mental health care. Such a system will (a) allow the public and employers to identify scientifically trained psychologists; (b) stigmatize ascientific training programs and practitioners; (c) produce aspirational effects, thereby enhancing training quality generally; and (d) help accredited programs improve their training in the application and generation of science. These effects should enhance the generation, application, and dissemination of experimentally supported interventions, thereby improving clinical and public health. Experimentally based treatments not only are highly effective but also are cost-effective relative to other interventions; therefore, they could help control spiraling health care costs. The new Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS) is intended to accredit clinical psychology training programs that offer high-quality science-centered education and training, producing graduates who are successful in generating and applying scientific knowledge. Psychologists, universities, and other stakeholders should vigorously support this new accreditation system as the surest route to a scientifically principled clinical psychology that can powerfully benefit clinical and public health.
医疗保健成本的不断攀升以及近期的其他趋势,使得医疗保健决策具有重大的社会意义,决策责任常常从从业者转移到卫生经济学家、医疗保健计划机构和保险公司。医疗保健决策越来越多地受到这样一些证据的指导,即一种治疗方法是有效的、能够有效传播的、具有成本效益的且在科学上是合理的。在这种对成本高度关注以及由机构进行经济决策的情况下,心理学家正在失去在心理和行为医疗保健中发挥领导作用的机会:其他类型的从业者提供的治疗比例越来越高,而且相对于心理干预措施的提供,精神科药物的使用急剧增加。研究表明,许多心理干预措施是有效、高效且具有成本效益的。然而,这些干预措施在那些能够从中受益的患者中却很少使用,部分原因是临床心理学家没有为使用这些干预措施提供令人信服的理由(例如,没有提供决策者支持实施此类干预措施所需的数据),而且临床心理学家自己即使有机会也不使用这些干预措施。临床心理学家未能在临床和公共卫生方面产生更大影响,这可能归因于他们对科学作用的深深矛盾心理以及缺乏足够的科学训练,这导致他们重视个人临床经验甚于研究证据,采用心理测量支持存疑的评估方法,并且不使用有最有力疗效证据的干预措施。临床心理学类似于医学发展史上从业者大多以基本不科学的方式开展工作的那个阶段。在20世纪初医学进行科学改革之前,医生通常持有许多当今临床心理学家的态度,比如重视个人经验甚于科学研究。医学改革在很大程度上是美国医学协会为增加医学院校教育的科学基础而做出的一项有原则的努力。大量证据表明,许多临床心理学博士培训项目,尤其是心理学博士学位项目和营利性项目,在研究生录取方面没有坚持高标准,师生比例高,在培训中不重视科学,培养出来的学生无法应用或创造科学知识。提高临床心理学质量以及其对临床和公共卫生影响的一个有前景的策略是通过一种新的认证系统,该系统将高质量的科学训练作为临床心理学博士培训的核心特征。正如加强医学培训标准显著提高了医疗保健质量一样,提高临床心理学的培训标准将提升健康和心理健康护理水平。这样一个系统将:(a) 使公众和雇主能够识别接受过科学训练的心理学家;(b) 使不科学的培训项目和从业者受到指责;(c) 产生激励作用,从而总体上提高培训质量;(d) 帮助获得认证的项目改进其在科学应用和创造方面的培训。这些效果应该会促进基于实验的干预措施的产生、应用和传播,从而改善临床和公共卫生状况。基于实验的治疗方法不仅非常有效,而且相对于其他干预措施具有成本效益;因此,它们有助于控制不断攀升的医疗保健成本。新的心理临床科学认证系统(PCSAS)旨在认证那些提供以高质量科学为中心的教育和培训的临床心理学培训项目,培养出能够成功创造和应用科学知识的毕业生。心理学家、大学和其他利益相关者应该大力支持这个新的认证系统,将其作为通往科学原则性临床心理学的最可靠途径,这种临床心理学能够有力地造福临床和公共卫生。