↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of stress levels, coping styles and psychological morbidity between graduate-entry and traditional undergraduate medical students during the first 2 years at a UK medical school

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of stress levels, coping styles and psychological morbidity between graduate-entry and traditional undergraduate medical students during the first 2 years at a UK medical school
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2395-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Zvauya, F. Oyebode, E. J. Day, C. P. Thomas, L. A. Jones

Abstract

Stress levels and psychological morbidity are high among undergraduate medical students (UGs), but there is a lack of research into the psychological health of UK graduate-entry medical students (GEs). GEs are likely to experience different (perhaps more severe) stressors and to cope with stress differently. We compared stress levels, psychological morbidity and coping styles in GE versus UG medical students studying at the same UK medical school in the same academic year. A cross-sectional self-rated questionnaire study of all first- and second-year GE and UG medical students was conducted. Perceived stress, psychological morbidity, recent adverse life events, stress-related personality traits and coping styles were assessed using standard questionnaires. 75% GEs and 46% UGs responded to the questionnaire. Both groups reported equally high levels, and similar profiles of, perceived stress and psychological morbidity. Levels of recent adverse life events and stress-related personality traits were similar in both groups. Compared to UGs, GEs were more likely to use active coping (p = 0.02) and positive reframing (p = 0.03), but were also more likely to use substances (alcohol and other drugs; p < 0.001) to help them cope. Unlike UGs, second-year GEs showed less perceived stress (p = 0.007) and psychological morbidity (p = 0.006) than first-year GEs although levels of both were still high. Our results show that both GE students and their younger UG counterparts on a traditional medical course have similar profiles of stress symptoms. They do, however, cope with stress differently. GEs are more likely to use active problem-focused coping strategies, and they are also more likely to cope by using substances (alcohol or other drugs). GE students need interventions to prevent maladaptive coping styles and encourage adaptive coping that are tailored to their needs. Such interventions should be targeted at first-year students. It is vital that these students develop positive coping skills to benefit them during training and in a future career that is inherently stressful.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 23%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Lecturer 7 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Psychology 11 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 35 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,961,524
of 9,122,902 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,162
of 2,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,467
of 255,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#31
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,122,902 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,303 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.