Personal and educational experiences of medical students on attitudes towards Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Given the increasing global burden of mental illness, the existing shortage of psychiatrists internationally is a concerning development with a deteriorating trajectory. In 2016, only 5% of US medical students considered a career in psychiatry, and the situation is similar in other areas (e.g., European countries). Attracting medical students to the field of psychiatry is evidently necessary. This paper investigates European medical students’ attitudes towards psychiatry, their intentions to pursue psychiatry as a career, and the role of different factors such as personal experience and education on their interest in psychiatry. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was analyzed from 799 medical students in two European countries. Data was collected in 2016. Participants completed a survey on their attitudes towards psychiatry, their medical education regarding psychiatry, and personal experiences. Cross tabulations with chi-square tests were performed for inferential analyses using a significance level of 0.05. Results: The number of years spent in medical school, the students’ personal experiences, and the perceived quality of education was significantly associated with specialty choice and ranking of psychiatry relative to other specialties. Students’ exposure to internships, psychiatric placements, and their view on psychiatric instructors also played a significant role in choosing psychiatry as a profession. Conclusions: The systematic evaluation of students’ attitudes towards psychiatry and motivational factors for pursuing psychiatry as a specialty, such as psychiatric education in medical school and personal experience, can inform necessary changes in the recruitment of students to the field. Efforts must address the worldwide shortage of psychiatrists to effectively reduce the burden of disease associated with mental health and substance use.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".