Suchergebnisse

Background: The Bologna Process was initiated to harmonize study processes and contents throughout Europe in order to facilitate communication and cross-border study exchange. However, when it comes to postgraduate education and practical work in clinical psychology, no such harmonization exists - there is still significant heterogeneity between European countries. Method: To initiate the section Politics and Education, we analysed the current situation in Europe with regard to national regulations on education, training and practice in clinical psychology and psychological treatment and give a brief summary on the status quo. Results: There are extensive differences across Europe regarding governmental and national regulations for psychologists in general, and clinical psychologists in particular. Whereas some countries have very detailed regulations including a description of reserved activities for clinical psychologists, others leave the profession widely unregulated. When it comes to psychological treatment, some countries define it as an independent activity allowed to be applied by different professions, others clearly restrict access to the profession of psychotherapists. Conclusion: A great diversity in national regulations and practical issues related to clinical psychology and psychological treatment exists across Europe. Our results underline the importance of the Politics and Education section in the journal Clinical Psychology in Europe in order to strengthen the development of an international perspective on clinical psychology. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Background: The Bologna Process was initiated to harmonize study processes and contents throughout Europe in order to facilitate communication and cross-border study exchange. However, when it comes to postgraduate education and practical work in clinical psychology, no such harmonization exists - there is still significant heterogeneity between European countries. Method: To initiate the section Politics and Education, we analysed the current situation in Europe with regard to national regulations on education, training and practice in clinical psychology and psychological treatment and give a brief summary on the status quo. Results: There are extensive differences across Europe regarding governmental and national regulations for psychologists in general, and clinical psychologists in particular. Whereas some countries have very detailed regulations including a description of reserved activities for clinical psychologists, others leave the profession widely unregulated. When it comes to psychological treatment, some countries define it as an independent activity allowed to be applied by different professions, others clearly restrict access to the profession of psychotherapists. Conclusion: A great diversity in national regulations and practical issues related to clinical psychology and psychological treatment exists across Europe. Our results underline the importance of the Politics and Education section in the journal Clinical Psychology in Europe in order to strengthen the development of an international perspective on clinical psychology. National regulations for clinical psychologists differ significantly between European countries. Structure and contents of postgraduate training in clinical psychology vary widely across Europe. In some countries, treatment is reserved to psychologists, in others it's open for further professions. The Politics and Education section shall foster understanding, communication and cooperation.

Background: There is a lack of empirical evidence on the level of cultural adaptation required for psychological interventions developed in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies to be effective for the treatment of common mental disorders among culturally and ethnically diverse groups. This lack of evidence is partly due to insufficientdocumentation of cultural adaptation in psychological trials. Standardised documentation is needed in order to enhance empirical and meta-analytic evidence. Process: A "Task force for cultural adaptation of mental health interventions for refugees" was established to harmonise and document the cultural adaptation process across several randomised controlled trials testing psychological interventions for mental health among refugee populations in Germany. Based on the collected experiences, a sub-group of the task force developed the reporting criteria presented in this paper. Thereafter, an online survey with international experts in cultural adaptation of psychological interventions was conducted, including two rounds of feedback. Results: The consolidation process resulted in eleven reporting criteria to guide and document the process of cultural adaptation of psychological interventions in clinical trials. A template for documenting this process is provided. The eleven criteria are structured along A) Set-up; B) Formative research methods; C) Intervention adaptation; D) Measuring outcomes and implementation. Conclusions: Reporting on cultural adaptation more consistently in future psychological trials will hopefully improve the quality of evidence and contribute to examining the effect of cultural adaptation on treatment efficacy,feasibility, and acceptability.

Background: There is a lack of empirical evidence on the level of cultural adaptation required for psychological interventions developed in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies to be effective for the treatment of common mental disorders among culturally and ethnically diverse groups. This lack of evidence is partly due to insufficientdocumentation of cultural adaptation in psychological trials. Standardised documentation is needed in order to enhance empirical and meta-analytic evidence. Process: A "Task force for cultural adaptation of mental health interventions for refugees" was established to harmonise and document the cultural adaptation process across several randomised controlled trials testing psychological interventions for mental health among refugee populations in Germany. Based on the collected experiences, a sub-group of the task force developed the reporting criteria presented in this paper. Thereafter, an online survey with international experts in cultural adaptation of psychological interventions was conducted, including two rounds of feedback. Results: The consolidation process resulted in eleven reporting criteria to guide and document the process of cultural adaptation of psychological interventions in clinical trials. A template for documenting this process is provided. The eleven criteria are structured along A) Set-up; B) Formative research methods; C) Intervention adaptation; D) Measuring outcomes and implementation. Conclusions: Reporting on cultural adaptation more consistently in future psychological trials will hopefully improve the quality of evidence and contribute to examining the effect of cultural adaptation on treatment efficacy,feasibility, and acceptability.

Background: There is a lack of empirical evidence on the level of cultural adaptation required for psychological interventions developed in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies to be effective for the treatment of common mental disorders among culturally and ethnically diverse groups. This lack of evidence is partly due to insufficient documentation of cultural adaptation in psychological trials. Standardised documentation is needed in order to enhance empirical and meta-analytic evidence. Process: A "Task force for cultural adaptation of mental health interventions for refugees" was established to harmonise and document the cultural adaptation process across several randomised controlled trials testing psychological interventions for mental health among refugee populations in Germany. Based on the collected experiences, a sub-group of the task force developed the reporting criteria presented in this paper. Thereafter, an online survey with international experts in cultural adaptation of psychological interventions was conducted, including two rounds of feedback. Results: The consolidation process resulted in eleven reporting criteria to guide and document the process of cultural adaptation of psychological interventions in clinical trials. A template for documenting this process is provided. The eleven criteria are structured along A) Set-up; B) Formative research methods; C) Intervention adaptation; D) Measuring outcomes and implementation. Conclusions: Reporting on cultural adaptation more consistently in future psychological trials will hopefully improve the quality of evidence and contribute to examining the effect of cultural adaptation on treatment efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion