Developing the competent psychiatric psychotherapist: A single‐site, retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Psychiatry residents often enter their residency training intending to practice psychotherapy after completing residency; however, this early interest appears to diminish over the course of their training. To preserve psychotherapy as a core competency of future psychiatrists, different educational approaches might be considered, including introducing formal psychotherapy training in the first year of residency to capitalise on this early interest. The University of Manitoba postgraduate psychiatry training programme has a 20‐year history of beginning formal psychotherapy training in the first year of residency. This study examines former residents’ perceptions of psychotherapy training in the early years of their residency that have affected their career path trajectory with regard to their perceived competencies as psychotherapists and psychiatrists. The authors electronically surveyed 59 psychiatrists who completed psychiatry residency at the University of Manitoba between the years of 2000 and 2011 regarding their perspectives of their early years of their psychotherapy training, as well as the impact of formal psychotherapy training on their current practice. Survey response rate was 35.6%. Only 23.8% had a psychotherapy‐oriented practice. Most (90.5%) highly valued their psychotherapeutic skills, and 95.2% of respondents felt that psychotherapy training should begin in the first year of residency. Psychiatrists endorsed the opportunities to observe formal psychotherapy and participate in co‐therapy as elements of psychotherapy training that would most enhance their skill and competency development. This survey supports the early introduction of psychotherapies training, and suggests that these skills are highly valued by general psychiatrists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".