Survey of psychotherapy experience and interest among psychiatric specialist registrars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and Method A postal survey was conducted to determine what proportion of psychiatric specialist registrars working in Scotland (n=119, excluding those specialising in psychotherapy) met the requirements for experience in psychotherapy. Since 2004, this has been a compulsory part of eligibility criteria for the MRCPsych part II examination. Results Two-thirds of those surveyed responded. One-third of respondents met the Royal College of Psychiatrists' requirements for psychotherapy experience. Half the respondents reported competence in at least one modality of psychotherapy. Four-fifths of respondents were interested in gaining further experience and training, two-thirds in developing a special interest and one-quarter in dual training, in at least one modality of College psychotherapy. There was no significant association between adherence to the requirements and self-perceived competence, qualification or the wish to gain further training and experience in psychotherapy. Clinical Implications The majority of trainees, even those interested in psychotherapy, still fail to meet College requirements. Many trainees would appreciate an opportunity to gain greater depth of psychotherapy experience, in addition to gaining broad experience of various aspects of psychotherapy as required by the College.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".