MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322757081 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279050

Influencing factors of depressive symptoms among undergraduates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4322757081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Le Yang, Jiarong Yuan, Huan Sun, Yidan Zhao, Jiajie Yu, Youping Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSichuan University
KeywordsMeta-analysisDepressive symptomsSystematic reviewMEDLINEMedicineClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineBiologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to examine the influencing factors of undergraduates' depressive symptoms by summarizing the categories and intensity of the factors, to lay a foundation for subsequent research. METHODS: Two authors independently searched in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopu, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, the Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP Database), China National Knowledge database (CNKI), and the WanFang database for cohort studies related to the influencing factors affecting depressive symptoms among undergraduates published prior to September 12, 2022. Adjusted Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of regression coefficient estimates were performed to calculate pooled estimates with R 4.0.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 73 cohort studies were included, involving 46362 participants from 11 countries. Factors affecting depressive symptoms were classified into relational, psychological, predictors of response to trauma, occupational, sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. In Meta-analysis, 4 of 7 influencing factors were revealed to be statistically significant: negative coping (B = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.22-1.74), rumination (B = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01-0.11), stress (OR = 0.22, 95%CI: 0.16-0.28) and childhood abuse (B = 0.42, 95%CI:0.13-0.71). No significant association was found in positive coping, gender and ethnicity. LIMITATIONS: The current studies have the problems of inconsistent use of scales and large heterogeneity of research design, making it difficult to summarize, which is expected to be further improved in future research. CONCLUSION: This review evidences the importance of several influencing factors of depressive symptoms among undergraduates. We advocate for more high-quality studies with more coherent and appropriate study designs and outcome measurement approaches in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration CRD42021267841.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.027
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.049 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207