Psychologists Collaborating With Clergy

If a patient adheres to religious values and practices, should the treating psychologist get input from a clergyperson? How frequent is clergy-psychologist collaboration? What obstacles impede such collaboration? An exploratory survey questionnaire was sent to 200 clergy, 200 psychologists interested in religious issues, and 200 psychologists selected without regard to religious interests or values. Four themes were assessed: types of collaborative activities, frequency of collaboration, obstacles to collaboration, and ways to enhance collaboration. Strategies for promoting clergy-psychologist collaboration include challenging unidirectional referral assumptions, building trust through proximity and familiarity, and considering the importance of shared values and beliefs

Spiritual Formation Training in Christian Psychology Doctoral Programs: Introduction to Special Issue

This article introduces a special issue on spiritual formation training in Christian psychology doctoral programs. The importance of spiritual formation in the integration of psychology and Christianity is discussed, with a focus on the person of the psychotherapist. Student-faculty collaboration was valued throughout the preparation of the special issue, from the initial idea to peer reviewing and final editing. Finally, themes observed in the various articles are summarized and continued dialog is encouraged

Examples of Collaboration Between Psychologists and Clergy

Some psychologists may be interested in working collaboratively with clergy and yet may not know where to start. What kinds of collaborative projects are possible? A qualitative analysis of 77 narratives offered by psychologists and clergy involved in collaboration revealed that collaboration between psychologists and clergy currently takes place in at least four contexts: mental health services, parish life, community concerns, and academics. Reported obstacles to collaboration are also described. Essential attitudes for psychologists interested in collaborating with clergy include respecting clergy as professionals, willingness to venture out from traditional professional settings, and exploring innovative collaborative possibilities

Spiritual Formation Training in the George Fox University Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology

Spiritual formation training in the George Fox University Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology is described. An evangelical Quaker institution, the ethos of George Fox University is intended to foster experiential spiritual development and reflective self-awareness. In a 2008 curriculum revision the faculty attempted to strengthen the experiential dimensions of spiritual formation training even at the risk of reducing training in more academic dimensions of theology and integration. A 2013 program evaluation solicited student and alumni perspectives on the effectiveness of the spiritual formation training they received. Results of the program evaluation suggest areas for future development

Collaborate With Whom? Clergy Responses to Psychologist Characteristics (Chapter 2 of Psychology and the Church)

Some clergy and psychologists are willing to collaborate in providing for people under their care and some are reticent. The purpose of this research is to see if clergy are more likely to collaborate with psychologists of a particular sex or training background. Six groups of clergy were given written descriptions of a psychologist that varied on these two dimensions-the institution from which the psychologist received training and sexand were then asked to rate how likely they would be to participate in 7 collaborative scenarios with the psychologist. No group differences were found. Furthermore, clergy characteristics were not significantly related to their likelihood of collaborating with psychologists. Differences were observed among the 7 collaborative scenarios, suggesting that clergy are more interested in some forms of collaboration than others. It appears that idiographic relational factors are ultimately more important than general demographic categories in establishing clergy-psychologist collaboration

Colonization of Biofilms in a Freshwater Stream by Fecal Coliforms and Escherichia Coli

Enteric bacterial contamination was assessed along one area of Wilson’s Creek comparing bacterial levels found in the water column with those found in biofilm. Samples were collected 5 times per month for 7 months, and analyzed for fecal coliform and E. coli. A biofilm collection device was constructed using removable plates to grow biofilm, which were then transported to the laboratory and submitted to bacterial separated procedures. Using routine bacteriological analysis procedures, levels of fecal coliform and E. coli from both the water column and biofilm were determined. Each sampling date, turbidity, air temperature, water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, flow rate, and nutrient concentrations were measured. The presence of pathogenic strains; Salmonella, Shigella, and E. coli were determined from biofilm samples using molecular methods. Correlation analysis indicated bacterial levels in the water column are influenced by turbidity and phosphorus, while bacterial levels in biofilm correlated with dissolved oxygen and flow. Median counts for water column E. coli exceeded EPA established limits of 126 CFU/100mL set for recreational waters every month. Median fecal coliform levels in the water column exceeded EPA limits of 200 CFU/100mL for 6 of the 7 sample months. Bacterial levels in the water column peaked during summer months, decreasing with water temperature. Biofilm bacterial numbers remained constant or increased despite low temperatures, suggesting added survivability and environmental resistance when incorporated in biofilm. Pathogenic strains, Salmonella and Shigella, were detected in biofilm; however, no samples tested positive for E. coli

Relationships between Microbial Indicators and Pathogens in Recreational Water Settings

Fecal pollution of recreational waters can cause scenic blight and pose a threat to public health, resulting in beach advisories and closures. Fecal indicator bacteria (total and fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, and enterococci), and alternative indicators of fecal pollution (Clostridium perfringens and bacteriophages) are routinely used in the assessment of sanitary quality of recreational waters. However, fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), and alternative indicators are found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans, and many other animals and therefore are considered general indicators of fecal pollution. As such, there is room for improvement in terms of their use for informing risk assessment and remediation strategies. Microbial source tracking (MST) genetic markers are closely associated with animal hosts and are used to identify fecal pollution sources. In this review, we examine 73 papers generated over 40 years that reported the relationship between at least one indicator and one pathogen group or species. Nearly half of the reports did not include statistical analysis, while the remainder were almost equally split between those that observed statistically significant relationships and those that did not. Statistical significance was reported less frequently in marine and brackish waters compared to freshwater, and the number of statistically significant relationships was considerably higher in freshwater (p \u3c 0.0001). Overall, significant relationships were more commonly reported between FIB and pathogenic bacteria or protozoa, compared to pathogenic viruses (p: 0.0022–0.0005), and this was more pronounced in freshwater compared to marine. Statistically significant relationships were typically noted following wet weather events and at sites known to be impacted by recent fecal pollution. Among the studies that reported frequency of detection, FIB were detected most consistently, followed by alternative indicators. MST markers and the three pathogen groups were detected least frequently. This trend was mirrored by reported concentrations for each group of organisms (FIB \u3e alternative indicators \u3e MST markers \u3e pathogens). Thus, while FIB, alternative indicators, and MST markers continue to be suitable indicators of fecal pollution, their relationship with waterborne pathogens, particularly viruses, is tenuous at best and influenced by many different factors such as frequency of detection, variable shedding rates, differential fate and transport characteristics, as well as a broad range of site-specific factors such as the potential for the presence of a complex mixture of multiple sources of fecal contamination and pathogens