Changes in Characteristics and Practice Patterns of Ontario Psychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in demographic, geographic, and practice characteristics of all Ontario psychiatrists between 2003 and 2013 and their implication for access to psychiatrists. METHODS: We included all psychiatrists who were clinically active in Ontario in any year from 2003 to 2013. For each psychiatrist, we reported age, sex, years since medical school graduation, geographic practice region, and practice characteristics such as total number of inpatients, outpatients, and outpatient visit frequencies. RESULTS: In 2013, there were 2070 psychiatrists, with nearly half (47%) more than 30 years since medical school graduation. Female psychiatrists comprised 41% of all psychiatrists in 2013 but 56% of all psychiatrists within 15 years of medical school graduation. Between 2003 and 2013, there was a 17% increase in the total number of psychiatrists, with the largest growth in psychiatrists occurring in the group more than 30 years from medical school graduation. Over these 11 years, the mean (SD) number of unique outpatients seen by a psychiatrist annually increased from 208 (228) to 249 (275) (19.5%; P = 0.001), with male psychiatrists, on average, seeing more outpatients annually than female psychiatrists. CONCLUSION: The number of outpatients seen by psychiatrists is slowly increasing. However, the large proportion of aging psychiatrists, the high concentration of psychiatrists in urban settings, and the increase in the number of female psychiatrists with smaller practices suggest that without radical changes to the way psychiatrists practice, access to psychiatrists will remain a challenge in Ontario.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".