Discussion: Does Psychotherapy Have a Biological Basis?
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Discusion question
Just from $13/Page
Many studies have found that psychotherapy is as effective as psychopharmacology in terms of influencing changes in behaviors, symptoms of anxiety, and changes in mental state. Changes influenced by psychopharmacology can be explained by the biological basis of treatments. But how does psychotherapy achieve these changes? Does psychotherapy share common neuronal pathways with psychopharmacology? For this Discussion, consider whether psychotherapy also has a biological basis.
Post an explanation of whether psychotherapy has a biological basis. Explain how culture, religion, and socioeconomics might influence one’s perspective of the value of psychotherapy treatments. Support your rationale with evidence-based literature.
Required Readings
American Nurses Association. (2014). Psychiatric-mental health nursing: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
· Standard 1 “Assessment” (pages 44 & 45)
Note: Throughout the program you will be reading excerpts from the ANA’s Scope & Standards of Practice for Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing. It is essential to your success on the ANCC board certification exam for Psychiatric/Mental Health Nurse Practitioners that you know the scope of practice of the advanced practice psychiatric/mental health nurse. You should also be able to differentiate between the generalist RN role in psychiatric/mental health nursing and the advanced practice nurse role.
Wheeler, K. (Eds.). (2014). Psychotherapy for the advanced practice psychiatric nurse: A how-to guide for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
· Chapter 1, “The Nurse Psychotherapist and a Framework for Practice” (pp. 3–52)
Fournier, J. C., & Price, R. B. (2014). Psychotherapy and neuroimaging. Psychotherapy: New Evidence and New Approaches, 12(3), 290–298. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207360/
Holttum, S. (2014). When bad things happen our brains change but psychotherapy and support can help the recovery of our brains and our lives. Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 18(2), 52–58. doi:10.1108/MHSI-02-2014-0006
Petiprin, A. (2016). Psychiatric and mental health nursing. Nursing Theory. Retrieved from http://www.nursing-theory.org/theories-and-models/psychiatric-and-mental-health-nursing.php
Fisher, M. A. (2016). Introduction. In Confidentiality limits in psychotherapy: Ethics checklists for mental health professionals (pp. 3–12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14860-001
Document:
Practicum Journal Template (Word document)
Note:
This template is provided by the School of Nursing and is designated to document practicum activity. You are required to use this template for all journal entry submissions.
Document:
Midterm Exam Study Guide (Word document)
Document:
Final Exam Study Guide (Word document)
Document:
NP Student Clinical Orientation (PowerPoint file)
Document:
Practicum Manual (PDF). Retrieved from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/ld.php?content_id=7356923
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Introduction to psychotherapy with individuals [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 2 minutes.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6640_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
·
Grid View
·
List View
|
|
Outstanding Performance
|
Excellent Performance
|
Competent Performance
|
Proficient Performance
|
Room for Improvement
|
|
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
|
Points Range: 44 (44%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
supported by at least 3 current, credible sources
|
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 43 (43%)
Responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
|
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)
is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
|
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)
one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed
is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis
somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)
lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria
lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis
does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
contains only 1 or no credible references
|
|
Main Posting:
Writing
|
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
|
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)
Written clearly and concisely
May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
|
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
|
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)
Written somewhat concisely
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Contains some APA formatting errors
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Not written clearly or concisely
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
|
|
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
|
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts main discussion by due date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
|
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
|
|
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
|
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
|
|
Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
|
|
Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
|
|
Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
|
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
|
|
First Response:
Writing
|
|
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
|
|
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
|
|
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
|
|
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
|
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
|
|
First Response:
Timely and full participation
|
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts by due date
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
|
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
|
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
|
Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings
Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting
Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
|
Second Response:
Writing
|
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are answered if posed
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources
Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
|
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
|
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
Posts by due date
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
|
Total Points: 100
|
