GROUP PROCESS AND PSYCHOLOGIST WORK IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Authors

  • Laura Vilela e Souza Triângulo Mineiro Federal University (Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro)
  • Manoel Antônio dos Santos Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Languages of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo).

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.46711

Keywords:

group practice, primary health care, psychology.

Abstract

This article aims to discuss the role of psychologists in primary health care from the proposition of group processes alternatively to individualist practices. Those practices keep traditions of hierarchy and user-professional models of normalization and medicalization. Inspired by social constructionist epistemology, group process is discussed as an alternative to individualist practices that maintain traditions of hierarchy between user-professional and to models of normalization and medicalization. Inspired by the social constructionist perspective, we discuss some of the assumptions that inspire this proposal of group process, such as: (1) group process as an alternative to the notion of group as self-contained, (2) user-professional collaborative relationships with the constant negotiation about the type of care offered and (3) self-reflexivity to understand its potential and limits. We believe that this form of assistance can inspire other group practices that can implement the principles of the Brazilian Unified Health System and the ideal of professional training in psychology recommended for working with public health policies.

Downloads

Author Biographies

  • Laura Vilela e Souza, Triângulo Mineiro Federal University (Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro)

    Professor of the Department of Developmental, Educational and Work Psychology of the Triângulo Mineiro Federal University (Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro)

  • Manoel Antônio dos Santos, Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Languages of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo).

    Associate Professor of the Psychology Post-graduate Program of the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Languages of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo (Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo). Support: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq.

References

Dimenstein MDB. O psicólogo nas Unidades Básicas de Saúde: desafios para a formação e atuação profissionais. Estud Psicol. 1998; 42(1): 53-81.

Andrade JFSM, Simon CP. Psicologia na atenção primária à saúde. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto). 2009; 19(43): 167-175.

Gil CRR. Atenção primária, atenção básica e saúde da família: sinergias e singularidades do contexto brasileiro. Cad. Saúde Pública. 2006; 22(6): 1171-1181.

Camargo-Borges C, Japur M. Sobre a (não) adesão ao tratamento: ampliando sentidos do autocuidado. Texto Contexto-Enf. 2008; 17(1): 64-71.

Boarini ML, Borges RF. O psicólogo na Atenção Básica à Saúde. Psicol. Cienc. Prof. 2009; 29(3): 602-613.

Conselho Federal de Psicologia (CFP). Práticas profissionais de psicólogos e psicólogas na atenção básica à saúde. Brasília: CFP; 2010.

Ferreira Neto JL, Kind L. Promoção da saúde: práticas grupais na Estratégia Saúde da Família. São Paulo: Hucitec; Belo Horizonte, MG: Fapemig; 2011.

Onocko-Campos RT, Campos GWS, Ferrer AL, Corrêa CRS, Madureira PR, Gama CAP, Dantas DV, Nascimento R. (2012). Avaliação de estratégias inovadoras na organização da Atenção Primária à Saúde. Rev. Saúde Pública. 2012; 46(1): 43-50.

McNamee S, Hosking DM. Research and social change: a relational constructionist approach. New York/Oxford: Routledge; 2012.

Hernig M, Chasin L. Fostering dialogue across divides: a nuts and bolts guide from the Public Conversations Project. Watertown, MA: Public Conversation Project; 2006.

Seikkula J, Arnkil TE. Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac; 2006.

Rasera, EF, Japur M. Sobre a preparação e a composição em terapia de grupo: descrições construcionistas sociais. Psicol. Reflexão Crítica. 2006; 19(1):131-141.

Rasera EF, Japur M. Grupo como construção social: aproximações entre construcionismo social e terapia de grupo. São Paulo: Vetor; 2007.

Camargo-Borges C, Mishima S, McNamee S. (2008). Da autonomia à responsabilidade relacional: explorando novas inteligibilidades para as práticas de saúde. Gerais Rev. Interinstitucional Psicol. 2008; 1(1): 8-19.

Gergen KJ. Relational being: beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

Hosking DM, Pluut B. (Re)constructing reflexivity: a relational constructionist approach. The Qual. Rep. 2010; 15(1):59-75.

Souza LV, McNamee S, Santos MA. Avaliação como construção social: investigação apreciativa. Psicol Soc. 2010; 22(3): 598-607.

Souza LV, Scorsolini-Comin F. Relações profissionais em equipes de saúde: alternativas construcionistas relacionais. Saúde Transf. Soc. 2011; 1(3):37-46.

Hacking, I. The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1999.

Barros RB. Grupos: a afirmação de um simulacro. Porto Alegre: Sulina; 2007.

Pearce WB, Pearce KA. Taking a communication perspective on dialogue. In Anderson R, Baxter LA, Cissna KN, editors. Dialogue: theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012. p.39-56.

Vicente AT, Japur M, Cesar ABC, Ruffino CMC, Russo R. Conversations to promote conversations. In: Rasera E F, editor. Social constructionist perspectives on group work. Chagring Falls: Taos Institute Publishing; 2012.

Salvendy JT. Seleção e preparação dos pacientes e organização do grupo. In: Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ, editors. Compêndio de psicoterapia de grupo. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 1996. p. 63-72.

Downloads

Published

2012-10-31

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 3 (2012)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis