Cultural Considerations for Psychologists in Primary Care

Many health concerns in the United States (e.g., diabetes) are routinely managed in primary care settings. Regardless of the medical condition, patients’ health is directly influenced by factors such as healthcare providers and cultural background. Training related to how behaviors influence health, coupled with training on how cultural diversity intersects with mental health, allows psychologists to have the relevant expertise to assist in the development of primary care behavioral health interventions. However, many psychologists in primary care struggle with how to integrate a culture-centered paradigm into their roles as behavioral health providers. This paper provides an introduction on how three culture-centered concepts (providers’ cultural sensitivity, patient–provider cultural congruency, and patients’ health literacy) can be applied in primary care using the Five A’s Organizational Construct and a model of cultural competence. In addition, the paper includes a section on integration of cultural considerations into consultation and training and concludes with a discussion of how the three culture-centered concepts have implications for health equity.     

Leisure,materialism, well-being and the environment

Introduction

There are increasing concerns that people in modern societies spend too much of their leisure time on activities such as shopping and watching television and that this undermines human well-being and damages the environment.

Paradigm shift in religious education? A reply to Gearon,or when is a paradigm not a paradigm?

This article responds to Liam Gearon’s reply to my article Misrepresenting Religious Education’s Past and Present in Looking Forward: Gearon Using Kuhn’s Concepts of Paradigm, Paradigm Shift and Incommensurability. In maintaining my critique of Gearon’s use of Kuhn’s terminology, I question his claim that ‘incommensurability’ does not necessarily imply ‘incompatibility’, and challenge his view that ‘faith-based’ approaches to religious education and ‘inclusive’ approaches are incommensurable and deeply incompatible. I also question Gearon’s placement of particular scholars within his constructed paradigms, noting that those identified by Gearon with specific paradigms do not necessarily share the same views concerning the nature of religious education and its pedagogy, and that various scholars, associated by Gearon with particular paradigms, draw on a variety of disciplines in their work. I argue that Gearon’s construction of paradigms is a device he uses for ‘separation’, leading to his misrepresentation of the work of researchers. I argue for the benefits of collaboration, in research, teaching and policy development. Finally, I give reasons for writing the article, which do not result from any engagement in ‘paradigm wars’, and I draw attention to pressing issues relating to the future of ‘inclusive’ religious education which are not addressed by Gearon.