open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
E-ISSN : 2733-4538
This article is an introduction to the special section of the Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology on the current status and fu- ture directions of Korean clinical psychologists. For the past decade there has been a dramatic increase of the licensed clinical psychologists. With the enactment of the Mental Health Act in 1995, Korean clinical psychologists were listed as one of the nationally licensed professionals in the mental health field and involved in delivering mental health services in the local com- munity mental health system. Four articles were included in the special issue to examine the current status and activities of Korean clinical psychologists, their roles in the community mental health delivery system in Korea, and their research com- petence indicated by the number of published research articles on the outcome of CBT. Results of survey were presented on the clinical psychologists’ professional self-views, major roles, activities and affiliations, theoretical orientations, and use of ev- idence-based practice. Comparison between American and Korean community mental health systems were also made to highlight the similarities and differences in the service delivery methods, qualifications and certification criteria and the in- surance policies. Finally future directions for roles, professional activities, training, legislation and mental health policies were discussed.
This study aimed to obtain information on the demographic characteristics, employment settings, professional activities, the- oretical orientation, and career satisfaction of Korean licensed clinical psychologists. A survey link was sent to the members of the Korean Society of Clinical Psychology through e-mail and text message. Of 1,357 licensed clinical psychologists 600 (44.2%) responded to the survey. The results show that the percentage of women has continually increased since 2007, from 75.3% to 87.0%, and the percentage of clinical psychologists with doctoral degrees has decreased since 2007, from 42.7% to 22.2%. The percentage of full-time clinical psychologists was 67.3% and various hospitals and clinics were the most common employment setting for clinical psychologists. The next-most-frequent sites for employment were private practice (14.5%), universities (13.5%), and public and national institutes (10.0%). The majority identified themselves as psychotherapists (40.2%) or psychological assessment professional (39.5%), followed by academicians (12.2%). The numbers of clinical psy- chologists involved in psychotherapy and assessment for more than half of their time were 160 (26.7%) and 191 (31.8%), re- spectively. The majority (80.9%) endorsed more than two theoretical orientations, cognitive behavioral, or behavioral orienta- tion was the most-popular primary orientation (63.2%) and psychoanalysis or psychodynamic orientation was the next- most-popular one (18.8%). The mean scores for satisfaction with career, graduate training, and internship were 3.29, 3.21, and 2.83, respectively, showing significant differences. Finally, implications and future prospects for clinical psychology in Korea are discussed.
With the enactment of the Mental Health Act in 1995, Korean clinical psychologists have received government-certified licensureand have gained a legal position to actively take part in the national mental health project. As a result, clinical psychologistshave become specialists in mental health, and the scope of their activities as experts has broadened. In addition,since the Mental Health Act was wholly amended to the Act on the Improvement of Mental Health and the Support for WelfareServices for Mental Patients in 2016, the role of the mental health clinical psychologists became more diverse, and thetraining system was also reformed. Therefore, we reviewed the history, main roles, status, and training environments of themental health clinical psychologists in Korea and discussed future directions for further growth. Especially, to maintain legalstatus in government-certified licensure, we suggest some solutions to cope with critical challenges due to the altered mentalhealth system.
Currently, in South Korea a desirable mental health service system plan for local community have been under discussion. In particular, opinions are divided over effective mental health treatment methods and accessibility enhancement. The purpose of this review is suggesting improvement plan and discovering problem of local community mental health service system in South Korea by comparing case reviews of U.S. and South Korea. In this review, the researcher examined each the therapy method, service delivery system and how mental health service is applied in insurance policy in both countries. At the end of the review, the researcher emphasized the suggestion of the review and need of further investigation for it.
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the treatment option with strong empirical evidence for use with various mental illnesses. As in many other countries, such as the U.S. and the U.K, it has recently been announced that CBT will be covered by the National Health Insurance Benefit in Korea, allowing many people with mental illness to receive CBT at a minimum cost. However, the expertise of CBT providers has not been understood and highlighted in the policy. The current study aimed to investigate the research competence of clinical psychologists as the most well-trained CBT providers by quantitatively analyzing the number of primary authors (1st or corresponding authors) of peer-reviewed research articles about CBT outcome trials published in Korea. Among a total of 112 outcome studies and 50 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) studies finally selected, the highest portion of the primary authors of CBT outcome trials in Korea were clinical psychologist (54.5%), followed by psychiatrists (8.9%) and counseling psychologists (2.7%). The results were also maintained for CBT RCT (e.g., clinical psychologists [58.0%]). The results demonstrate the research competence of Korean clinical psychologists and their leading role in CBT outcome trials. Future directions for mental health policy on CBT are discussed.