La formation aux psychothérapies des internes en psychiatrie en France : résultats d’une analyse qualitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To explore the level of satisfaction among residents regarding their training in psychotherapies, the interest they have in these therapies, and their wishes in the area of training.Methods A survey including both a quantitative and qualitative methodology was undertaken among 869 residents out of 1,334 enrolled in the psychiatric residency program. In the 2009-2010 academic year. The survey included five themes of study: theoretical academic training, psychoanalysis, training in institutes outside the university, supervision, wishes in the area of training. This article presents results from the qualitative sociological survey using a semi-guided interview with 27 residents. Their conceptions and practice in the field of psychotherapy, and its place in psychiatric practice were questioned in-depth.Results The vast majority of residents were interested in psychotherapy, but simultaneously dissatisfied with the training they had received. Almost half opted for various sorts of extra-curricular training, costly in time and money. The psychotherapeutic orientations among these residents were varied, and a plurality of methods and theoretical approaches was advocated both for reasons of having a wider viewpoint and good practice in psychiatry, and because the residents considered this plurality to be an essential component in their training. They saw psychotherapy as a medical practice, and considered that it is the responsibility of the psychiatric discipline to provide training in psychotherapies.Conclusion The absence of any real training in psychotherapies for residents in psychiatry is damaging for care quality in psychiatry. The recent creation of a protected title of psychotherapist for psychiatrists without the need of additional training suggests an urgent need to develop a training course. A proposal by the authors should be discussed in light of reflections and proposals already underway in other countries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".