Trends in medical students’ health over 5 years: Does a wellbeing curriculum make a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trends in New Zealand (NZ) medical students' health and the influence of a wellbeing curricula are unknown. METHODS: The author's collected self-report data from NZ medical students on 'Graduation Day' from 2014 to 2018, using a serial cross-sectional survey design with validated scales assessing psychological health, stigma, coping, and lifestyle. Comparisons were made with NZ general population same-age peers. Analyses examined trends, differences between 'cohorts' of students receiving different exposures to a wellbeing curriculum, and correlations between students' own lifestyle practices and their frequency of talking with patients about those topics. RESULTS: Of 1,062 students, 886 participated. The authors found statistically significant self-reported increases from 2014 to 2018 for negative psychological indices, including scores for distress and burnout, suicidal thoughts in the preceding year, and the likelihood of being diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. There was a significant increase in numbers of students reporting having their own doctor as well as increased healthy coping strategies and a significant decrease in stigma scores. Academic cohorts of students who had completed a wellbeing curriculum were more likely to report high distress levels, having been diagnosed with a mood disorder, and being non-drinkers than students without wellbeing training. When compared to NZ peers, medical students smoked less, exercised more, and were less likely to have diagnosed mood and anxiety disorders, but reported more distress. The authors found a significant correlation between the amount of exercise students undertook and their likelihood to discuss exercise with patients. CONCLUSIONS: NZ medical students have better physical health than general population peers and are more likely to discuss exercise with patients if exercising themselves. However, cohorts of graduating students report increasing distress despite the implementation of a wellbeing curriculum. Research is needed into mechanisms between students' self-awareness, willingness to report distress, stigma, mind-set, coping, and psychological outcomes, to inform curriculum developers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".