Psychodermatology in Canada: A National Survey Assessment of Dermatologists’ Perception, Practice Patterns, and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the perception of psychodermatology, practice patterns, and challenges reported by Canadian dermatologists. METHODS: We designed an online questionnaire based on previous literature, including questions about practitioners' perceptions, practice patterns, training, and challenges in psychodermatology. We solicited their opinions on desired training, research needs, and clinical approach recommendations. Our survey was distributed nationally by the Canadian Dermatology Association (CDA). RESULTS: Of the total of 78 participating dermatologists, >75% reported treating patients with psychodermatological conditions, with higher frequencies of secondary than primary psychodermatological conditions. While practitioners had some confidence in their understanding of psychodermatology (median = 4 on a 5-point scale), their comfort levels to approach these patients were lower (median = 3), and their confidence in prescribing psychotropic medication was markedly low (median = 2). A total of 50% reported that a "multidisciplinary approach" would be best for these patients. Poor access to psychiatry was the most reported (26.9%) challenge, together with time constraints, lack of training, poor communication with patients, and lack of patient insight and resources. While 46.2% reported having never participated in psychodermatology training, 55.1% expressed interest in doing so. CONCLUSION: We identified several challenges with knowledge, awareness, and healthcare delivery in psychodermatological practice in Canada. Increasing dermatologists' access to psychiatric consultations/services, a multidisciplinary approach with dermatologists and psychiatrists co-providing care, and more specialized training in this area are recommended to narrow the identified gaps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".