Original Research Strategies of Collaboration Between General Practitioners and Psychiatrists: A Survey of Practitioners ’ Opinions and Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The description of collaboration models and the key underlying principles provide impor-tant information for designing services. However, to apply this broad corpus of information to clinical services and policymaking, we need to know which key principles (or strategies) of collaboration are the most accepted by local physicians. Method: In this context, we designed a survey that included 2 objectives: 1) to collect the opinions of practising general practitioners (GPs) and psychiatrists in Montreal with respect to strategies for improv-ing collaboration between these 2 groups and 2) to identify demographic and practice characteristics of those physicians associated with the acceptance of such strategies. We designed a questionnaire to specifi-cally elicit physicians ’ opinions about strategies involving communication, continuing medical education (CME) for GPs in psychiatry, and access to consulting psychiatrists, as well as to identify the profiles of the respondent physicians. We mailed the questionnaire to 203 GPs and 203 psychiatrists who were ran-domly selected. Results: The response rate was 86 % for GPs and 87 % for psychiatrists. Physicians expressed favourable opinions about most strategies involving 1) the improvement of communication and 2) the organization of CME activities concerning GP practices in the field of psychiatry. On the other hand, they did not indicate acceptance of the strategies involving on-site collaboration between GPs and psychiatrists. Physician age, sex, place of practice, type of practice (such as seeing patients with or without appointments), and respon-sibility for administrative duties associated significantly with the degree of acceptance of the proposed strategies Conclusion: Communication and CME strategies for GPs in psychiatry can be an option to improve col-laboration between GPs and psychiatrists. However, strategies of access to consulting psychiatrists require significant alterations to established clinical routines and professional roles.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".