A week long “pep” talk – initial and 2–3-year longitudinal data on the Ottawa Psychiatry Enrichment Program (OPEP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recruitment to psychiatry as a career has been challenging in Canada and abroad despite the known shortage and increasing burden of psychiatric issues globally. Deterrents to choosing psychiatry as a career include its negative stigma and paucity of knowledge about the field. The study goal was to evaluate the Ottawa Psychiatry Enrichment Program (OPEP), a one-week extracurricular program about psychiatry as a career for 1st and 2nd year medical students. We hypothesized OPEP would improve students' attitudes towards psychiatry, and positive changes would be sustained 2-3 years later following their residency match. We hypothesized there would be a high recruitment of OPEP attendees to psychiatry programs. METHODS: 1st and 2nd year medical students from Canada applied to OPEP. Attendees completed the Attitudes Towards Psychiatry Questionnaire (ATP-30) at three times: before OPEP (PreOPEP), after OPEP (PostOPEP) and after their Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMs) match 2-3 years later. OPEP ATP-30 scores were compared to third-year student ATP-30 scores before and after their psychiatry rotation. Data were analysed using Friedman non-parametric ANOVA and post hoc testing by either Wilcoxon rank sum test, Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test, or parametric Welch independent t-test as appropriate. Effect sizes of group mean differences were calculated using Cohen's "d". RESULTS: Between 2017-2018, 29/53 Canadian applicants were selected for OPEP. 100%, 93.1% and 75.8% of OPEP students completed the PreOPEP, PostOPEP, and CaRMs ATP-30 surveys respectively. 43% of OPEP attendees matched to psychiatry. PostOPEP ATP-30 scores (mean = 133, median = 137, SD = 10.6) were significantly higher than PreOPEP ATP-30 (mean score = 121, median = 122, SD = 9.3, p < 0.001) and CaRMS ATP-30 (mean = 126, median = 127, SD = 12.3, p < 0.02) scores. OPEP effect size on ATP-30 scores was large (d = 1.2) but decreased 2-3 years later (p = 0.078, d = 0.44). 97/202 students completed the ATP-30 before and after their psychiatry rotation (clerkship). Clerkship effect size on improvement in ATP-30 was moderate (d = 0.39). There was a non-significant difference between OPEP CaRMS ATP-30 and post clerkship ATP-30 scores (median 127 vs 121, p = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: OPEP ameliorated attitudes toward Psychiatry, but improvement deteriorated longitudinally. Strategies for program design, and innovations to boost/retain improvements during clerkship years are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".