Dataset Information

Understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Data from studies with undergraduate and postgraduate taught students suggest that they are at an increased risk of having mental health problems, compared to the general population. By contrast, the literature on doctoral researchers (DRs) is far more disparate and unclear. There is a need to bring together current findings and identify what questions still need to be answered. METHODS:We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to summarise the research on doctoral researchers' (DRs) mental health. Our search revealed 52 articles that were included in this review. RESULTS:The results of our meta-analysis found that DRs reported significantly higher stress levels compared with population norm data. Using meta-analyses and meta-synthesis techniques, we found the risk factors with the strongest evidence base were isolation and identifying as female. Social support, viewing the PhD as a process, a positive student-supervisor relationship and engaging in self-care were the most well-established protective factors. CONCLUSIONS:We have identified a critical need for researchers to better coordinate data collection to aid future reviews and allow for clinically meaningful conclusions to be drawn. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration CRD42018092867.

SUBMITTER: Hazell CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7450565 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

Hazell Cassie M CM Chapman Laura L Valeix Sophie F SF Roberts Paul P Niven Jeremy E JE Berry Clio C

Systematic reviews 20200826 1

<h4>Background</h4>Data from studies with undergraduate and postgraduate taught students suggest that they are at an increased risk of having mental health problems, compared to the general population. By contrast, the literature on doctoral researchers (DRs) is far more disparate and unclear. There is a need to bring together current findings and identify what questions still need to be answered.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to summarise the research on doctoral ...[more]

PMID: 32847624

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital mental health interventions have the potential to increase mental health support among isolated older adults. However, the older adult population can experience several barriers to accessing and using digital health resources and may need extra support to experience its benefits.ObjectiveThis paper aimed to understand what older adults experience as an important aspect of support during engagement in a digital mental health program. The program entailed 3 months of staff support to participate in digital literacy training and engage with the digital mental health platform myStrength, which offers support for a range of mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety.MethodsA total of 30 older adults participated in surveys and interviews to assess their experience of participating in a digital mental health program provided by county mental health services. As part of the program, participants attended 4 classes of digital literacy training, had access to the digital mental health platform myStrength for 2 months with staff support (and 10 months after the program without support), and received support from program staff during the entire 3-month program. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsA thematic analysis of the interview data revealed that participants valued ongoing support in 3 main areas: technical support to assist them in using technology, guided support to remind them to use myStrength and practice skills they had learned, and social support to enable them to connect with others through the program. Furthermore, participants reported that social connections was the most important aspect of the program and that they were mainly motivated to participate in the program because it was recommended to them by trusted others such as a community partner or because they believed it could potentially help others.ConclusionsOur findings can be used to inform the design of future digital mental health programs for older adults who may have unique support needs in terms of dedicated technical support and ongoing guided support to use technology and social support to increase social connectedness.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Dataset Information

Understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

Publications

Understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets