The Juice is Worth the Squeeze: Psychiatry Residents’ Experience of Balint Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Balint Groups provide physicians with a forum to develop their capacity to empathically engage with patients, through exploring patient-provider relationships. The Dalhousie University Department of Psychiatry implemented a mandatory Balint Group as part of the junior resident curriculum. The purpose of this study is to explore how residents describe their experience of participating in this Balint Group. METHODS: Psychiatry residents in their first year of training participated in a focus group to discuss their experiences of the Balint Group. Data was analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: . CONCLUSION: Residents attributed fellowship with their peers, self-efficacy and hope in their work to their participation in the Balint Group. While there was an adjustment period, residents grew to accept, and even appreciate the group. Lack of problem-solving became accepted as part of the purpose of the group and this acceptance was attributed to having other avenues within the program to address problems raised in the discussion. Feeling disconnected when the session ended was described and was related to the abrupt termination of the virtual session or having to exit the group early to return to clinical duties. While the virtual nature of the group was not explicitly identified as a challenge, having to leave early was. While these institutional factors can be mitigated through programmatic implementation, they are not a deal breaker to implementing a Balint Group in a residency training program. Even in a lunch hour or virtual environment our data suggests that the juice is worth the squeeze.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".