Family physicians and psychiatrists. Qualitative study of physicians' views on collaboration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand how to improve collaboration between psychiatrists and family physicians in primary care settings. DESIGN: Qualitative study using 10 in-depth interviews and a focus group session. SETTING: Catchment area in eastern Montreal, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Five FPs and five psychiatrists. METHOD: Ten interviews and a focus group were conducted to identify ways of improving collaboration between FPs and psychiatrists. All session were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Analysts used Atlas.ti to compare findings vertically and horizontally. MAIN FINDINGS: Three strategies were identified: communication, continuing medical education (CME) for FPs, and access to consulting psychiatrists. The first two can be implemented by FPs and psychiatrists together, but psychiatrists thought the last one was not feasible due to lack of both time and remuneration for such activity. CONCLUSION: Better communication and CME for FPs in psychiatry can help improve collaboration between FPs and psychiatrists. Increased access to consulting psychiatrists requires substantial alteration in established clinical roles and routines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".