Alexithymia and coping strategies among medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction University life is stressful for the student, which is characterized by disturbed emotional regulation or alexithymia. To face these stressful events he must use certain coping strategies. Objectives Studying the prevalence of alexithymia and exploring coping strategies among medical students, and establish the relationship between these parameters. Methods It was a cross-sectional study of 97 students in Sfax university medicine (Tunisia). We used: – a questionnaire containing demographic and clinical data; – Toronto alexithymia Scale (TAS-20): a score ≥61 indicates alexithymia; – WCC (Ways of Coping Checklist-r Folkman) with 3 factors: problem-focused, emotion-focused and social support coping. Results The average age of participants was 24.07 years (±2.71); the sex ratio (M/W) was 0.4. They were smoking in 36.1% and sedentary in 43.3% of case. They had a nibbling activity in 57.7%. The average score of TAS-20 was 50. 92 10.46 and alexithymia was found in 16.5% of students. Alexithymia was significantly correlated with smoking ( P = 0.003) and physical inactivity ( P = 0.025). Most students (72.2%) opted for problem-focused ways of coping with a highest score at WCC = 29.21. A significant correlation was found between alexithymia and coping strategy with emotion-focused ( P = 0.02). The TAS score was significantly higher among students who resort to this ways of coping = 26.11. ( P = 0.002). Conclusion This study explored the role of alexithymia in stress management ubiquitous in university life. A high level of alexithymia could be a detrimental factor in stress management. Psychological support aimed specifically alexithymic dimension is indispensable. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".