MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reflections on Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Supervision for Psychiatrists in Clinical Practice

2004· review· en· W2064215600 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCountertransferencePsychotherapistFeelingPsychosocialPsychologyPsychodynamicsClinical supervisionPsychodynamic psychotherapyShameTransferencePsychoanalytic theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been written about psychotherapy supervision for trainees in psychiatry. Psychiatrists are also encouraged to receive supervision when dealing with difficult patients or when involved in personal events that have the potential to have an impact on their psychotherapeutic work. Nevertheless, a literature search, conducted through Medline, revealed few publications dealing with supervision of psychiatrists who conduct psychotherapy in clinical settings after completion of training. This article discusses the issues involved in psychotherapy supervision for the supervisor, supervised psychiatrists, and their practice settings and patients. The author first discusses the benefits of psychotherapy supervision for psychiatrists in clinical practice, including helping psychiatrists maintain and improve psychotherapeutic skills, assistance in dealing with patients who have complex or especially challenging problems (e.g., personality disorders, intractable depression, difficulties with compliance, complex psychosocial problems), addressing ethical concerns, boundary issues, and transference and countertransference, and helping psychiatrists deal with personal issues that may cause difficulties in providing psychotherapy or issues that arise in working with a multidisciplinary team. The author then reviews key issues related to the supervisory process, including group versus individual supervision, the role of the supervisor, different supervisory styles, and factors that can contribute to feelings of shame or vulnerability in the supervisee. The author also discusses different supervisory styles, clarifies the distinction between therapy and supervision, and discusses issues that arise in the supervision of experienced psychodynamic therapists. Barriers that may keep psychiatrists from seeking psychotherapy supervision are reviewed. Finally the author discusses the supervision of those acting as supervisors for other clinicians.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.458 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it