Psychotherapy in Contemporary Psychiatric Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: American data suggest a declining trend in the provision of psychotherapy by psychiatrists. Nevertheless, the extent to which such findings generalize to psychiatric practice in other countries is unclear. We surveyed psychiatrists in British Columbia to examine whether the reported decline in psychotherapy provision extends to the landscape of Canadian psychiatric practice. METHOD: A survey was mailed to the entire population of fully licensed psychiatrists registered in British Columbia (n = 623). The survey consisted of 30 items. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and psychotherapy practice patterns. Associations between variables were evaluated using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: A total of 423 psychiatrists returned the survey, yielding a response rate of 68%. Overall, 80.9% of psychiatrists (n = 342) reported practicing psychotherapy. A decline in the provision of psychotherapy was not observed; in fact, there was an increase in psychotherapy provision among psychiatrists entering practice in the last 10 years. Individual therapy was the predominant format used by psychiatrists. The most common primary theoretical orientation was psychodynamic (29.9%). Regarding actual practice, supportive psychotherapy was practiced most frequently. Professional time constraints were perceived as the most significant barrier to providing psychotherapy. The majority (85%) of clinicians did not view remuneration as a significant barrier to treating patients with psychotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the prevailing view that psychotherapy is in decline among psychiatrists. Psychiatrists in British Columbia continue to integrate psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in clinical practice, thus preserving their unique place in the spectrum of mental health services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".