Clinical psychologist and/or general health psychologist

The recent adoption of the General Act on Public Health (Act 33/2011) with the creation of the new post of General Health Psychologist has produced the particular situation of the existence of two figures of professional psychologists with competences in the field of health: Psychologist Specialist in Clinical Psychology, formed through the Hospital Residential Training Program (PIR) and a General Health Psychologist formed through the Master’s Degree in General Health Psychology. This situation is causing much polemic and controversy arising mainly from the different professional functions attributed to them and the intended workplace where future professionals engaged in it may exercise their activity. In this paper we address all these issues and various disputes and conflicts arising, relating mainly to different legal competences conferred on both professionals. The article addresses and discusses possible alternatives of solution to these conflicts and argues for the best solution, including the legal recognition of two different types of professional psychologists, with similar clinical and health skills, but with different training and itinerary of formation: a) the Hospital Residential Training Program (PIR) for the Specialist Clinical Psychologist and b) training through the Public Health Official Master, taught by the University, in the General Health Psychologist. Finally a series of possible alternatives in this situation could help to improve the image and the usefulness of Clinical and Health Psychology that we propose as an integrated solution to overcome these problems.