Collaboration between family physicians and psychologists: what do family physicians know about psychologists' work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore factors affecting collaboration between family physicians and psychologists. DESIGN: Mailed French-language survey. SETTING: Eastern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians practising in the area of the Réseau des services de santé en français de l'Est de l'Ontario. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' knowledge and understanding of the qualifications of psychologists and the regulations governing their profession; beliefs regarding the effectiveness of psychological treatments; views on the integration of psychologists into primary care; and factors affecting referrals to psychologists. RESULTS: Of 457 surveys sent, 118 were returned and analyzed (27% of surveys delivered). Most family physicians were well aware that there were evidence-based psychological interventions for mental health and personal difficulties, and some knew that psychological interventions could help with physical conditions. Physicians had some knowledge about the qualifications and training of psychologists. Many physicians reported being uncomfortable providing counseling themselves owing to time constraints, the perception that they were inadequately trained for such work, and personal preferences. The largest barrier to referring patients to psychologists was cost, since services were not covered by public health insurance. Some physicians were deterred from referring by previous experience of not receiving feedback on patients from psychologists. Increased access to clinical psychologists through collaborative care was considered a desirable goal for primary health care. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians know that there are evidence-based psychological interventions for mental health issues. Psychologists need to communicate better about their credentials and what they can offer, and share their professional opinions and recommendations on referred patients. Physicians would welcome practice-based psychological services and integrated interdisciplinary collaboration as recommended by the Kirby and Romanow commissions, but such collaboration is hampered by the lack of public health insurance coverage.
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 | 0.008 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".