PubMed · 14619132
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D A Santrock. Physicians "correct" rather than "collect".. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14619132/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The clinical and the scientific value of the whole psychotherapy research enterprise depends upon the construct validity of its Mental Health Status (MHS) measurements. This is essentially a matter of conceptual validity, that is, what we agree that MHS reasonably means. Any theory of psychotherapy can be true only insofar as it involves independent variables that have demonstrated causal relevance to such conceptually valid measurements of MHS, which is also what makes the measurements of these independent variables predictively valid. Every published efficacy, effectiveness, and case study that tests or explores for explanations of MHS ought to involve the same conceptually valid MHS measures, but the necessary validity is still undemonstrated. It cannot be demonstrated unless the research community reaches a conceptual consensus on MHS, a consensus that decisive psychotherapy research must await.
PURPOSE: The aim of this article is to argue that self-regulation theory might offer a useful model for clinical practice, theory-building and empirical research on goal-setting in rehabilitation. METHOD: Relevant literature on goal-setting and motivation in rehabilitation is considered and some problematic issues for current practice and future research are highlighted. Carver and Scheier's self-regulation theory and its application to rehabilitation research is examined. RESULTS: It is argued that self-regulation theory offers a robust theoretical framework for goal-setting and one in which the salient concepts of motivation and emotion are prominent. CONCLUSIONS: Self-regulation theory offers a potentially useful heuristic framework for rehabilitation research.
OBJECTIVES: To study the reasons given by junior doctors trained in the United Kingdom for considering leaving UK medicine. DESIGN: Analysis of replies to postal questionnaire surveys. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 1326 doctors who qualified in 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reasons for considering leaving. RESULTS: Of 1047 doctors who indicated that they would stay in medicine but not necessarily in the United Kingdom, 65% (682) gave reasons for leaving that concerned lifestyle, such as a preference for living outside the United Kingdom; 41% (433) gave reasons concerning working conditions in UK medicine; and 18% (184) gave positive work related reasons, such as wanting to work in developing countries. Of 279 doctors considering leaving medicine, 75% (210) cited working conditions, 23% (63) cited lifestyle reasons, and 9% (24) cited positive interests in a different career. Of the 169 doctors who said that they would probably or definitely leave the United Kingdom but remain in medicine, 78% (132) specified lifestyle reasons. Of the 42 who said that they would probably or definitely leave medicine, 67% (28) cited working conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The wish to work abroad, but to stay in medicine, was more common than the wish to leave medicine. The preference for a different lifestyle, particularly to live outside the United Kingdom, is not readily amenable to policy changes to the medical working environment. The smaller numbers of doctors who gave work experience as a reason for considering leaving medicine might be influenced to stay by improvements in working lives.