Prevalence and Risk Factors for Anxiety in Medical and Allied Health Students in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the current known prevalence and risk factors for anxiety in medical and allied health profession students. The framing question for this systematic review was, “What is the prevalence of and mitigation of risk factors for anxiety among medical and allied health profession students?” Method CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, and SportDiscus were searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles published between January 2000 to October 2020 reporting primary data on anxiety in U.S. and Canadian medical and allied health students. Searches used combinations of Medical Subject Heading terms students, allied health, nursing, medical, athletic training, occupational therapy, physical therapy, physician assistant, anxiety, anxiety disorders, stress, psychological distress, or emotional regulation. Reference lists were inspected to identify additional relevant articles. Demographic information, instruments used, prevalence data, risk factors, and qualitative findings on student anxiety were abstracted. Results The search identified eleven studies that met the authors’ criteria. Most studies were cross- sectional surveys that evaluated various categories of psychological distress and associated behaviors. The studies suggest a wide range of prevalence rates of clinically significant anxiety with inconclusive results when differences in rates of anxiety by gender, age, class year or school were assessed. Clinical experience, time management, coping strategies, social support, and academic performance were all found to be risk factors associated with student’s anxiety. Conclusion Medical and allied health education can be a time that contributes to psychological distress in students. Prevalence, prevention, and management of anxiety, stress, and depression should be explored further, particularly within allied health professions to provide better insight into how educators can provide support to their students. Additionally, the ability to identify students at risk for anxiety and other mental health problems may be an important step in prevention moving forward.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".