Spirituality and Religion in Canadian Psychiatric Residency Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mental health professionals are increasingly aware of the need to incorporate a patient's religious and spiritual beliefs into mental health assessments and treatment plans. Recent changes in assessment and treatment guidelines in the US have resulted in corresponding curricular changes, with at least 16 US psychiatric residency programs now offering formal training in religious and spiritual issues. We present a survey of training currently available to Canadian residents in psychiatry and propose a lecture series to enhance existing training. METHODS: We surveyed all 16 psychiatry residency programs in Canada to determine the extent of currently available training in religion and spirituality as they pertain to psychiatry. RESULTS: We received responses from 14 programs. Of these, 4 had no formal training in this area. Another 4 had mandatory academic lectures dedicated to the interface of religion, spirituality, and psychiatry. Nine programs offered some degree of elective, case-based supervision. CONCLUSION: Currently, most Canadian programs offer minimal instruction on issues pertaining to the interface of religion, spirituality, and psychiatry. A lecture series focusing on religious and spiritual issues is needed to address this apparent gap in curricula across the country. Therefore, we propose a 10-session lecture series and outline its content. Including this lecture series in core curricula will introduce residents in psychiatry to religious and spiritual issues as they pertain to clinical practice.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".