Leadership skills training in Psychiatry: A European-based cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Leadership in healthcare organisations is crucial to continually improve and provide high quality compassionate care. Leadership development and training enables the psychiatrists in developing these essential skills. Focusing on how to enhance leadership development through leadership skills training and experiential learning should be a priority. However, little is known about the extent to which this leadership skills training is available across Europe in the early stage of the career of psychiatrists. Objectives To investigate the access to leadership development opportunities among European psychiatric trainees and early career psychiatrists (ECPs) and their perceptions related to leadership skills training. Methods Cross-sectional study, using an online survey consisting of multiple-choice questions and free text responses. Results Participants from 33 European countries took part in this survey, where the majority were female. More than half were general adult psychiatric trainees and more than a quarter ECPs. About half indicated having no access to leadership skills training within their training program, with only about 10% being satisfied with the training received. About half sought additional training outside their program. A vast majority requested training in leadership skills to be included in a psychiatric training program. Conclusions Our study provides an overview of important gaps in availability and access to leadership skills training amongst psychiatric trainees and ECPs across Europe. We hope that this study will help inform future actions pertaining to development and improvement of leadership skills training for trainees and ECPs across Europe. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".