Perfil e Práticas Profissionais de Psicólogos da Saúde do Distrito Federal

Seidl, Eliane Maria Fleury; Duarte, Sofia Costa e Silva; Magalhães, Danielle Bernardes; Costa, Marcela de Vasconcelos

doi:10.9788/TP2019.1-18

Eliane Maria Fleury Seidl ^**Mailing address: Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Psicologia, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Brasília, DF, Brazil, 70910-900. Phone: (061) 992111-087. E-mail: eliane.seidl@gmail.com

Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-5100

Sofia Costa e Silva Duarte

Hospital Santa Luzia, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7981-408X

Danielle Bernardes Magalhães

Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9859-4115

Marcela de Vasconcelos Costa

Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8125-7913

*Mailing address: Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Psicologia, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Brasília, DF, Brazil, 70910-900. Phone: (061) 992111-087. E-mail: eliane.seidl@gmail.com

Authors' Contributions

Substantial contribution in the concept and design of the study: Eliane Maria Fleury Seidl.

Contribution to data collection: Eliane Maria Fleury Seidl, Sofia Costa e Silva Duarte, Danielle Bernardes Magalhães e Marcela de Vasconcelos Costa.

Contribution to data analysis and interpretation: Eliane Maria Fleury Seidl, Sofia Costa e Silva Duarte, Danielle Bernardes Magalhães e Marcela de Vasconcelos Costa.

Contribution to manuscript preparation: Eliane Maria Fleury Seidl.

Contribution to critical revision, adding intelectual content: Eliane Maria Fleury Seidl , Sofia Costa e Silva Duarte, Danielle Bernardes Magalhães e Marcela de Vasconcelos Costa.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the publication of this manuscript.

Items of the scale	Tendency to disagree F (%)	Neither agree nor disagree F (%)	Tendency to agree F (%)
Health is my area of interest since the graduation course	14 (15.1)	18 (19.4)	61 (65.6)
I am interested in continuing to work in the field of health psychology	3 (3.2)	11(11.8)	79 (85.0)
What most contributed to my choice of the area of health psychology were my personal expectations	20 (21.5)	25 (26.5)	48 (51.6)
There is compatibility between my expectations about the performance of the psychologist in the area of health and the activities that I perform	9 (9.7)	9 (9.7)	75 (80.7)
I feel the need for specific training to improve my professional performance in the area ¹ 1 fi ve missing data in this item;	10 (11.0)	4 (4.4)	77 (84.7)
My work is carried out in a multidisciplinary team	8 (8.7)	9 (9.7)	76 (81.7)
What most contributed to my choice of the area of health psychology were the labor market opportunities ² 2 item recoded in the composition of the mean score.	41 (44.1)	20 (21.5)	32 (24.4)
The professionals with whom I work constitute an interdisciplinary team¹ 1 fi ve missing data in this item;	27 (29.7)	9 (9.9)	55 (60.5)
My work as a psychologist is recognized by the health team with which I work	6 (6.5)	12 (12.9)	75 (80.7)
We usually discuss our performance in team meetings	20 (21.6)	18 (19.4)	55 (59.1)
I am satisfied with my professional work in health psychology	13 (14.0)	17 (18.3)	63 (67.8)
The communication between the professionals of the team where I work is carried out in a clear and objective way	24 (25.8)	19 (20.4)	50 (53.8)
In my training, I felt a lack of training more targeted toward teamwork	22 (23.7)	9 (9.7)	62 (66.7)

Expectations and perception of the work in health ¹ 1 Score obtained through the arithmetic mean of the five point Likert scale responses to 13 statements, ranging from 1 (negative expectations and perceptions) to 5 (positive expectations and perceptions).		M	SD	t
Training	Undergraduate degree	3.66	0.49	-1.38
Training	Lato and/or stricto sensu graduate degree	3.81	0.51	-1.38
Attended discipline of Health Psychology	Yes	3.87	0.42	2.37 ^* * p <.05;
Attended discipline of Health Psychology	No	3.55	0.63	2.37 ^* * p <.05;
Internship in Health Psychology	Yes	3.87	0.51	1.92
Internship in Health Psychology	No	3.67	0.49	1.92
Conducted research (previous 5 years)	Yes	3.90	0.56	1.82
Conducted research (previous 5 years)	No	3.70	0.46	1.82
Performance of supervision (current or previous)	Yes	3.85	0.49	-1.66
Performance of supervision (current or previous)	No	3.67	0.52	-1.66
Forms of professional performance ² 2 Based on the reports regarding the practices performed, the score ranged from 0 to 26: with higher scores equating to the greater diversity of practices performed.		M	SD	t
Training	Undergraduate degree	14.60	4.56	2.82 ^ p <.01;
Training	Lato and/or stricto sensu graduate degree	17.26	3.57	2.82 ^ p <.01;
Attended discipline of Health Psychology	Yes	16.39	3.70	0.17
Attended discipline of Health Psychology	No	16.58	5.17	0.17
Internship in Health Psychology	Yes	16.92	3.79	1.18
Internship in Health Psychology	No	15.94	4.32	1.18
Conducted research (previous 5 years)	Yes	18.65	3.60	4.71 ^* ***** p <.001.
Conducted research (previous 5 years)	No	15.03	3.75	4.71 ^* ***** p <.001.
Performance of supervision (current or previous)	Yes	17.33	3.36	2.44 ^* * p <.05;
Performance of supervision (current or previous)	No	15.23	4.63	2.44 ^* * p <.05;

Categories	F	Examples of reports
Multi or interdisciplinary team activities or care	36	Multidisciplinary care; Existence of FHS in the Health Center where cases often require integrated action; The rounds in the wards and ICUs allow direct and frequent contact with other professionals.
Regular team meeting	34	Implementation of monthly meeting of the psychology team ...; Technical meeting with the presence of everyone.
Ease of communication and relationships	27	Openness to communication among the professionals; Exchanges of information with another psychologist of the service; Respect among colleagues.
Interest and integrative attitude of psychologists and team professionals	22	The desire of the psychologist to be part of the team; Enjoying what is done; Commitment to the work proposal; Involvement of everyone with a cause that everyone thinks is important.
Discussion of cases	18	Discussion of cases and conduct; The psychology team has monthly meeting to discuss conducts, development in medical records and doubts; The workload is similar and there are a lot of meetings to discuss cases, as well as outside the meeting.
Paradigm and ideology of humanization/biopsychosocial concept	15	Ideology of humanization in health; Consideration of subjectivity by the majority of the team; Biopsychosocial view of the patient.
Improvement and sharing of physical space	14	Physical proximity among the members of the team (most of the professionals dedicate all of their hours to working in the unit, remaining in the place most of the time); Adequate space for care ...; Shared room.

Categories	F	Examples of reports
Work overload	27	Work overload; Lack of time due to high patient demand; Excess of work.
Personal and interpersonal characteristics of the professionals	24	Interpersonal problems of some team members; Personal intrigues; Individualism; Presumption; Demotivation.
Ideologies/attitudes of the biomedical model	19	The biomedical model is still very ingrained in the hospital environment; Tradition of the institution and the SES still physician-centered; Professional training that privileges medical knowledge to the detriment of other professionals of the health area.
Communication difficulties	17	Professionals without adequate training for team communication; Entry of medical professionals with difficulty of communication with patients; Communication between professionals in different areas is inefficient . . ., which does not allow the identification of the patient's requirements and joint intervention.
Inadequacy/insufficiency of physical space and material resources	16	Lack of material resources and psychological tests; Lack of physical space; Physical space shared with other services; Space not appropriate.
No knowledge/no recognition of the psychologist's work	15	No knowledge of the attributions of psychology; Difficulty of the medical team in complying with the opinion of the psychologist; Request for a psychologist only for intervention in crisis; Not reading the contents of psychology.
Failures in interdisciplinary articulation	14	Academic training that does not establish academic knowledge and practices focused on Public Health in the scope of interdisciplinarity; Need to change from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary; Inexistence of clinical team meetings to plan and integrate their activities.

[1] *Mailing address: Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Psicologia, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Brasília, DF, Brazil, 70910-900. Phone: (061) 992111-087. E-mail: eliane.seidl@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Perfil e Práticas Profissionais de Psicólogos da Saúde do Distrito Federal

Resumo