Training Residents for Community Psychiatric Practice: The Resident Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To capture the views and experiences of psychiatry residents in 5 Canadian training programs with respect to community psychiatric training. METHOD: We sent a questionnaire regarding respondent demography, career interests, and community psychiatry training experiences to psychiatry residents at 5 training programs in Ontario. We undertook descriptive analyses and frequency comparisons on the returned data. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 48%, with considerable variation between programs. With respect to career planning, respondents indicated highest interest in urban hospital-based practice. An interest in additional community psychiatry training was, however, expressed, particularly by junior residents. Residents' suggestions for improving community psychiatry training included better promotion of training opportunities, improved quality of supervision in community settings, and more didactic teaching. CONCLUSION: Psychiatry residents are obtaining training experiences in community psychiatry, but objectives and guidelines are quite variable, as is reflected in their understanding of the definition of "community psychiatry." Residents' career paths are still focused on urban hospital-based practice or solo private practice, which likely reflects their prevalent training experiences. There is, however, interest in community psychiatry training. Junior residents may be more open to this type of practice, and curricula should allow more exposure to community psychiatry at this stage of 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".