Back

Coping skills, depression, and anxiety in medical students.

Baldassin, S. P.; Zilbermann, M. L.; Alves, T. C. d. T. F.; Martins-da-Silva, A. S.; Castaldelli-Maia, J. M.; Nogueira-Martins, L. A.

2023-09-25 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2023.09.24.23295999 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectiveto describe coping strategies during medical education and their relationship with course periods, with gender, and depressive and anxiety range symptoms. Methodthe Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T) were administered to 599 medical students from basic, intermediate and internship periods. ResultsThe response rate was 80.3% (279 females and 190 males aged 21.9 {+/-} 2.4 years). Belong to internship or basic/intermediate levels make a significant difference in choosing coping factors. Female students reported greater use of factors indicating a need for social support and fantasy. In contrast, male students reported greater use of factors such as substance use and self-control. Twenty percent of students scored high on anxiety (STAI-T>49), whereas 7.6% scored on the depression range (>20) and 8.0% on the dysphoric range (16-20) of the BDI. Students at the normal range at the BDI and the STAI-T reported greater use of factors such as of social support and problem solving. The factor analysis of the WCQ showed that dysphoric, depressive, and high anxiety students reported greater use of factors indicating fantasy, search of relief and escape. ConclusionDysphoria, depressive, and highly anxious medical students choose similar strategies to deal with stress related to medical graduation. Women and men exhibit distinct coping strategies related to medical education and training. Support and counseling services for medical students should take into consideration these depressive and anxiety ranges, and gender differences in coping strategies, with potentially important preventive and therapeutic implications.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.