Introduction
Traditionally, the cultural, economic, social, and physical environments of a mentally ill person have been some of the aspects that need to be considered when looking into the feasibility of any prevention program. This approach guides community psychologists since it allows for examination of a wider personal-environment fit other than just the psychological variables when designing for a prevention program. The second approach of a prevention program that has been widely used for an equally long time is when the prevention and integration programs activities are done in the patient’s day-to-day environment. This approach, though thought to be the best delivery system of both prevention and therapeutic help, has over time lost its niche but governments and granting agencies are looking to its restoration. The other approach that has also been used for a long time is that of directing interventions and preventions measures to the social cycle of a person other than directly to a person. The approach does not ignore the needs of the individual but rather acknowledges that systematic changes as a more efficient way of delivering help to the patient. (Norman, Allen and Julian 2002)
Discussion
Despite the success of the above-mentioned approach, different psychologists have over time designed other prevention and intervention programs. In 1964, Gerald Caplan explained that since prevention consisted of biological, psychological, and sociological procedures, then there are three different stages of prevention, namely primary, secondary and tertiary. Caplan described the primary stage as that of ensuring that no new incidences of mental illness were reported. The secondary measure was meant to ensure that through early detection and early findings, reduction of the period of illness and lightening of the course of disorders were achieved. The third effort, tertiary, was meant to ensure that there is a reduction of impairment caused by mental illness and prevent any possibility of a relapse. Between the years 1983 and 1987, Gordon revised the original classification of preventive stages and came up with three other stages, including universal, selected, and indicated. The universal prevention approach was designed for the general population regardless of whether one was a risk of developing a mental disorder or not. This approach is useful since it prevents incidences (new patients), and it is community-friendly since the methods used are derived from the target community values. The second prevention approach, according to Gordon, is selective. This method is more concerned with a section of the population that is at greater risk of developing mental illness. This group of people can be identified by mostly their economic environment since they are mainly people living in poverty; they can also be identified by their family environment, where families are characterized by a series of family stress, including premature births and or historical factors of mental illness hereditary. For this approach to be successful, the psychologist needs to know the factors that could pose a threat to the patients, such as biological and familial, their impacts, and also the most efficient preventive actions.
The third approach that Gordon found feasible was the indicative approach. This kind of approach is directed to the patients who are already experiencing difficulties and at risk of a relapse. This kind of approach brings the aspect of treatment as the first step to alleviating patients’ current problems. Once the patient has been treated, indicative prevention measures can then be administered to prolong recovery or make adjustments easier. Though these preventive measures have been helpful in one way or another, there has been criticism that classification prevention programs assume more knowledge than actually exist. This is an important criticism since, if not done well, it can be harmful or pejorative. (Norman, Allen and Julian 2002)
Integration of Prevention and Therapy
Though Clinicians and community psychologists share one goal of improving the mental illness status, there have been tensions rising between the two groups of health practitioners mainly because of the nature of their occupations. The community psychologists acknowledge the fact that a mental patient’s environment plays a great role in the healing process of the patient and thus advocate for a larger, community-integrated system for prevention measures that are to a large extent not remunerated. On the other hand, though the clinicians may acknowledge the community factor, they are more interested in the treatment part of it since they are more money-focused and do therefore do not find community projects profitable. (Norman, Allen and Julian 2002)
Conclusion
Community psychologists and clinicians play a very crucial role in ensuring that community health standards are highly maintained. If the two sets of mental health providers are true to their shared mission of improving community health standards, then they should realize sooner that they don’t have a choice but to work together and respect each other’s importance and efforts since they complement each other. The community psychologists should acknowledge that they need clinicians for treatment of already affected persons, and the clinicians should likewise acknowledge the importance of community psychologists since interventions measures have been proved to aid patients to get better faster after they have been discharged from the hospital.
Reference
Norman S, Allen W, and Julian Taplin, (2002) clinical psychology Evolving Theory, practice and research Prentice Hall.
Brekke J, Prindle C and Bae S (2001), Risks for individuals with schizophrenia who are living in the community.