Depressive Symptoms and Epistemological Approaches: A Qualitative Study Among Psychiatrists: Symptômes dépressifs et approches épistémologiques : une étude qualitative auprès de psychiatres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 17) of the French-speaking Canton of Vaud (Switzerland), working in public institutions or in private sector (cabinets), having different theoretical backgrounds depending on their training (systemic, cognitive-behavioural or psychodynamic) and different duration of clinical experiences were included in the study.MethodsA clinical vignette presenting a young man with depressive symptoms of moderate intensity having experienced multiples losses during the development and recent past was presented to the participants. Participants were invited to read the vignette and react ("thinking aloud"), followed by an invitation to elaborate on the diagnosis and treatment.ResultsA heterogeneous approach towards the diagnosis and treatment of depression was observed. Without a consensus regarding the diagnosis of depressions, two distinct ways to understand the clinical vignette emerged: one pathogenic, identifying the underlying causes of the depressive symptoms, and the other nosological, based on diagnostic criteria. Consequently, proposition for treatment also diverged ranging from psychotherapy, psychotropic medication, complementary and alternative treatments, and paramedical approaches such as ergo- and socio-therapy, at times leaving the choice up to the patient. Possible explanations for this diversity are a more or less strict adherence to diagnostic criteria used by the psychiatrists, be they ICD or DSM, the double training as psychiatrist and psychotherapist which is mandatory in Switzerland, a certain prudence regarding psychiatric diagnoses by fear of stigmatisation, attention to the therapeutic alliance or divergent views on the theoretical and conceptual understanding of depression.ConclusionThe results of this study underline the importance to include the epistemology of psychiatric disorders in training to raise awareness and conscientization regarding the influence of epistemological aspects on attitudes and approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of depression and other psychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".