You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In many respects the status of psychotherapy in public health-care systems is similar to that of alternative medicine. The roots of training are outside universities. Legitimation and public funding have been non-existent or insufficient as compared with other fields of health care. Also a great deal of mysticism is attached to both. It is therefore relevant to study the role of psychotherapy from the frame of reference given by research into alternative health care.
Formal health care is characterised by (1) legalised status, (2) access to public funding and (3) integration in the formal medical curriculum. On the other hand there are several treatment philosophies which remain as outsiders from the point of view of formal health care. Informal health care approaches are characterised by (1) lack of legalised status, (2) no access to public funding and (3) no integration in the medical curriculum. Alternative medicine is a term usually attached to forms of informal health care like acupuncture, Spa-culture etc.
Psychotherapy in the public health sector lies somewhere between formal and informal health care. While it has no legalised status, anyone may call himself ‘psychotherapist’. Its definition remains obscure and its public accountability poor.
In this paper I have tried to show how one country — Finland — has tried to grapple with this problem as it attempted to set up psychotherapy services whose quality could be properly monitored — ‘Quality Assurance’ — allowing for public accountability. Now that psychotherapy is well established as a valuable treatment in the field of mental health it is possible to consider future expansion as a cost-effective way to improve the general mental health of the country.