Medical students in distress: The impact of gender, race, debt, and disability.
Adult
Burnout, Professional
/ epidemiology
Depression
/ epidemiology
Education, Medical
/ economics
Female
Humans
Male
Prospective Studies
Quality of Life
Risk Factors
Schools, Medical
Stress, Psychological
/ epidemiology
Students, Medical
/ psychology
Suicidal Ideation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Training Support
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
27
07
2020
accepted:
17
11
2020
entrez:
3
12
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
20
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In 2012, over half of US medical students experienced burnout and depression. Since that time, there have been many changes to student demographics, school resources and awareness of burnout in the medical field altogether. New tools are also available to screen for student distress, a condition that correlates with low mental quality-of-life, suicidal ideation and serious thoughts of dropping out. Despite increased attention on wellbeing and improved screening methods, no large-scale studies have evaluated student distress in the modern era of medical education. The objective of this study was to determine the current prevalence of medical student distress and contributing risk factors. Student wellbeing from a national cohort of US medical students was measured with an electronic survey in a prospective, observational survey study from 2019-2020. Medical student distress was defined as a Medical Student Wellbeing Index (MS-WBI) of ≥4. Demographic details including age, race, gender, marital status, disability, desired specialty, and debt burden were evaluated in a multivariate logistic regression model to determine possible risk factors for the development of distress. A total of 3,162 students responded to the survey, representing 110 unique medical schools. Of these respondents, 52.9% met criteria for distress and 22% had either taken or considered taking a leave of absence for personal wellbeing. Independent risk factors for distress included involvement in the clinical phase of medical school (OR 1.37); non-male gender (OR 1.6); debt burden >$20,000 (OR 1.37), >$100,000 (OR 1.81), and >$300,000 (OR 1.96); and disability status (OR 1.84). Medical student wellbeing remains poor in the modern era of medical education despite increased attention to wellbeing and increased availability of wellbeing resources. Disability status is a novel risk factor for distress identified in this study. The persistence of previously identified risk factors such as non-male gender, debt burden and clinical phase of school suggest that efforts to curb medical student distress have been inadequate to date.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In 2012, over half of US medical students experienced burnout and depression. Since that time, there have been many changes to student demographics, school resources and awareness of burnout in the medical field altogether. New tools are also available to screen for student distress, a condition that correlates with low mental quality-of-life, suicidal ideation and serious thoughts of dropping out. Despite increased attention on wellbeing and improved screening methods, no large-scale studies have evaluated student distress in the modern era of medical education. The objective of this study was to determine the current prevalence of medical student distress and contributing risk factors.
METHODS
Student wellbeing from a national cohort of US medical students was measured with an electronic survey in a prospective, observational survey study from 2019-2020. Medical student distress was defined as a Medical Student Wellbeing Index (MS-WBI) of ≥4. Demographic details including age, race, gender, marital status, disability, desired specialty, and debt burden were evaluated in a multivariate logistic regression model to determine possible risk factors for the development of distress.
RESULTS
A total of 3,162 students responded to the survey, representing 110 unique medical schools. Of these respondents, 52.9% met criteria for distress and 22% had either taken or considered taking a leave of absence for personal wellbeing. Independent risk factors for distress included involvement in the clinical phase of medical school (OR 1.37); non-male gender (OR 1.6); debt burden >$20,000 (OR 1.37), >$100,000 (OR 1.81), and >$300,000 (OR 1.96); and disability status (OR 1.84).
CONCLUSIONS
Medical student wellbeing remains poor in the modern era of medical education despite increased attention to wellbeing and increased availability of wellbeing resources. Disability status is a novel risk factor for distress identified in this study. The persistence of previously identified risk factors such as non-male gender, debt burden and clinical phase of school suggest that efforts to curb medical student distress have been inadequate to date.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33270759
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243250
pii: PONE-D-20-23258
pmc: PMC7714351
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0243250Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Am J Occup Ther. 2016 Mar-Apr;70(2):7002250020p1-7002250020p10
pubmed: 26943107
Acad Med. 2014 Nov;89(11):1520-5
pubmed: 25250752
Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;42(1):94-108
pubmed: 28913621
Acad Med. 2006 Apr;81(4):354-73
pubmed: 16565188
Med Teach. 2011;33(10):834-9
pubmed: 21942482
JAMA. 2016 Dec 6;316(21):2271-2272
pubmed: 27923082
N Am J Med Sci. 2016 Feb;8(2):75-81
pubmed: 27042604
Acad Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;39(1):80-4
pubmed: 24840666
J Am Coll Health. 2013;61(5):286-301
pubmed: 23768226
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jan;29(1):18-20
pubmed: 24002633
Acad Med. 2011 Jul;86(7):907-14
pubmed: 21642810
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Oct 8;172(18):1377-85
pubmed: 22911330
Mayo Clin Proc. 2013 Dec;88(12):1435-42
pubmed: 24290117
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Mar;28(3):421-7
pubmed: 23129161
Acad Med. 2019 Jun;94(6):861-868
pubmed: 30681453
Med Educ. 2004 May;38(5):482-91
pubmed: 15107082
Med Educ. 2016 Jan;50(1):132-49
pubmed: 26695473
JAMA. 2019 Nov 26;322(20):2022-2024
pubmed: 31769816
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Sep;94(9):1681-1694
pubmed: 30803733
Fam Med. 2019 May;51(5):399-404
pubmed: 31081911
Med Educ. 2016 Apr;50(4):456-68
pubmed: 26995484
JAMA. 2004 Feb 4;291(5):633
pubmed: 14762045
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Nov;81(11):1443-8
pubmed: 17120399
J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96
pubmed: 6668417
Acad Med. 2014 Apr;89(4):573-7
pubmed: 24556765
Fam Med. 2008 Oct;40(9):626-32
pubmed: 18830837
BMC Med Educ. 2010 Jan 27;10:8
pubmed: 20105312
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 07;6(7):e010641
pubmed: 27388349
JAMA. 2016 Dec 6;316(21):2214-2236
pubmed: 27923088
JAMA. 2010 Sep 15;304(11):1181-90
pubmed: 20841531
J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Mar;6(1):78-84
pubmed: 24701315
JAMA. 2016 Dec 6;316(21):2237-2252
pubmed: 27923091
Acad Med. 2014 Mar;89(3):443-51
pubmed: 24448053
Acad Psychiatry. 2008 Jan-Feb;32(1):44-53
pubmed: 18270280
J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2014 Sep 29;4(4):
pubmed: 25317266