Electroconvulsive Therapy Training in Canada: A Call for Greater Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A national survey of senior psychiatric residents' experience of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) training was undertaken in Canada in 1989. Since then, guidelines have been published in Canada and the US with respect to ECT training in psychiatry residency programs. This study examines whether there has been any change in the Canadian resident ECT training experience through a second national survey. METHODS: Confidential questionnaires assessing the training in and the attitudes toward ECT were sent to all 133 psychiatric residents-in their final year of training in Canadian medical schools. RESULTS: We attained a response rate of 68.3%. Of respondents, 88% felt that theoretical and practical ECT training should be a mandatory component of psychiatric residency programs. No marked improvements have occurred with respect to didactic and bedside training in ECT, compared with the original 1989 study. Only 18% of respondents reported that they feel completely competent administering ECT. Despite this, 59.3% anticipate working in an inpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The publication of training guidelines has made little impact on training in and attitudes toward ECT in senior psychiatric residents in Canada. Despite senior residents' acknowledgement of ECT's value, few feel competent to administer ECT after completing their training.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".