scholarly journals Designing programs and educational opportunities to aid pediatricians in treating children with mental illness in an outpatient academic pediatric setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidija Petrovic-Dovat ◽  
Cheston M. Berlin ◽  
Pevitr S. Bansal ◽  
Benjamin N. Fogel
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Pediatric Setting

scholarly journals Perspectives on recidivists: the views of detainees, the general public and people working with offenders

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-75
Author(s):  
Antonio Iudici ◽  
Fela Boccato ◽  
Elena Faccio
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
General Public ◽  
Work Groups ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Rehabilitation Process ◽  
Social Reintegration ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reducing Recidivism

There is ample evidence on recidivism including its relationships with drug use, addiction, mental illness and security problems; however there has been less research based on direct accounts of detainee experiences and on the experience of people who try to prevent recidivism. The aim of this research was to describe how recidivism is perceived and dealt with by different actors: offenders (recidivists and non-recidivists), pedagogical operators and the public. The wider objective of the study was to identify ways in which various stakeholders can facilitate social reintegration of prisoners. The interviews revealed marked differences in how recidivism is interpreted; these affect both management of recidivism risk and the rehabilitation process, which involves society. The results suggest some ways of reducing recidivism, such as work groups among the actors involved, educational opportunities for offenders and the implementation of reintegration projects according to the laws on alternatives to prison.

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

A Tribute to the Late William J. Curran

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Institute ◽  
University Professor

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.

Cluttering in the Communicative Disorders Curriculum

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-57
Author(s):  
John A. Tetnowski
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Communication Disorders ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Opportunities For Learning ◽  
Communicative Disorders ◽  
Theoretical Issues

Abstract Cluttering is discussed openly in the fluency literature, but few educational opportunities for learning more about cluttering exist in higher education. The purpose of this manuscript is to explain how a seminar in cluttering was developed for a group of communication disorders doctoral students. The major theoretical issues, educational questions, and conclusions are discussed.

Commentary

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Behavioral Disorders ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Behavioral Disorder ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Psychiatric Rating ◽  
Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document