MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

First year medical student stress and coping in a problem‐based learning medical curriculum

2004· article· en· W2054850420 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsCoalition for Research in Women's HealthHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorCurriculumCoping (psychology)CohortPsychologyMedical educationClinical psychologyGeneral Health QuestionnaireAvoidance copingMental healthMedicinePsychiatryPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of psychological morbidity, sources of stress and coping mechanisms in first year students in a problem-based learning undergraduate medical curriculum. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort questionnaire survey. SETTING: Glasgow University Medical School. PARTICIPANTS: All first year students (n = 275) in the 1997-98 intake. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), sources of stress and coping strategies. RESULTS: The prevalence of psychological morbidity and mean GHQ-12 scores increased significantly between term 1 and term 3, with no significant gender differences. Principal stressors were related to medical training rather than to personal problems, in particular uncertainty about individual study behaviour, progress and aptitude, with specific concerns about assessment and the availability of learning materials. The group learning environment, including tutor performance, and interactions with peers and patients caused little stress. Students generally used active coping strategies. Both stressor group scoring and coping strategies showed some variation with gender and GHQ caseness. CONCLUSIONS: Increased student feedback and guidance about progress throughout the year and the provision of adequate learning resources may reduce student stress. Educational or pastoral intervention regarding effective coping strategies may also be beneficial. Continued follow-up of this cohort could provide information to inform further curriculum development and, if appropriate, aid the design of programmes for the prevention of stress-related problems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.437 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it