MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414136917 · doi:10.1002/jdd.70030

Stress Management for Students in Dental Education: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4414136917 on OpenAlexafffund
Gillian D. Boehm, Jessica Lieffers, Sheryl Mills, Amrinderbir Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsPsychological interventionStress managementMEDLINEStress (linguistics)Randomized controlled trialGrey literatureIntervention (counseling)Systematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress in the university setting is well-reported. This scoping review aims to synthesize and evaluate the current literature on stress in dental education to understand stress and stress-management interventions that have been trialed with dental students. Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to organize this scoping review, a systematic search strategy was chosen with keywords to identify stress management within the dental student population. Several databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, Cochrane, and Eric. The search terms included "students", "dentistry", "education", "management", and "stress". The review included only peer-reviewed articles published within the last 10 years (2014-2024). Included articles (n = 28) were organized by theme: (1) Problem-focused (prevalence and incidence of stress) (n = 4); (2) Factors influencing stress (socioeconomic, sociodemographic, sociopolitical, lifestyle factors, etc.) (n = 18); (3) Intervention-based (educational, support, movement, cognitive) (n = 6). The articles that were intervention-based were evaluated using the RE-AIM Framework, which covers five dimensions: Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. The literature review revealed a significant incidence of stress among dental students, yet there is a notable deficiency in robust research detailing effective interventions and their sustained impact on this demographic. Interventions fell under four main categories: Educational-based interventions (n = 1), support-based interventions (n = 1), movement-based interventions (n = 3), and cognitive-based interventions (n = 1). Overall, two intervention-based articles were randomized control trials, and two of the studies found significant changes in perceived stress levels or stress biomarkers. The findings underscore a need for further research in developing and testing effective stress-management interventions in dental students.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.499 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207