Assessing research competency development in Canadian psychiatry residency programs: A systematic review and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to conduct a systematic review to identify curricular and educational interventions to build research competency among Canadian psychiatry residents and fellows transitioning to the competency-by-design framework. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed, searching five databases from their inception to February 2023 for relevant evaluation-type studies exploring research competency among psychiatry residents and fellows. We appraised thestudy’s quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s risk of bias tool for observational designs. Results: Overall, 36 original articles met our inclusion criteria. Surveys ( n = 10) showed that participation in scholarly research, quality improvement, or educational projects relevant to psychiatry is needed in most residency programs. However, these vary significantly across programs; few need direct research experience for residency completion. The interventions spanned four categories: externally funded comprehensive research training programs ( n = 5); resident research tracks ( n = 11); workshops and seminars ( n = 7); and specific modules ( n = 3). Reported outcomes included overall program ratings, research output, and career trajectory. The quality of most studies was low because of the lack of controls or validated metrics for evaluating outcomes. Conclusions: While many studies have explored best practices in research curricula, the current literature does not inform competency-based models for Canadian psychiatry residency programs incorporating research training requirements. Further description is needed from Canadian psychiatric training bodies regarding appropriate curricula, milestones, and metrics for evaluating research competencies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".