Cargando…

Medical students’ coping with stress and its predictors: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES: To analyse stress coping styles of medical students at different time points of medical education and to identify predictors of functional coping. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among medical students (N = 497, 361 women and 136 men) before year one (n = 141), after year...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cummerow, Julia, Obst, Katrin, Voltmer, Edgar, Kötter, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IJME 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10693402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36870063
http://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.63de.3840
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To analyse stress coping styles of medical students at different time points of medical education and to identify predictors of functional coping. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among medical students (N = 497, 361 women and 136 men) before year one (n = 141), after year one (n = 135) and after year five (n = 220). Students answered the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory, the Work-Related Behaviour and Experience Patterns, the Perceived Medical School Stress Instrument and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multiple regression was used to examine factors associated with functional coping. RESULTS: Single factor ANOVA indicated a significant difference for functional coping between the time points (F ((2, 494)) = 9.52, p < .01), with fifth-year students scoring significantly higher than students before or after year one. There was a significant difference in dysfunctional coping (F ((2, 494)) = 12.37, p < .01), with students before year one and after year five scoring higher than those after year one. Efficacy (β = 0.15, t ((213)) = 4.66, p < .01), emotional distancing (β = 0.04, t ((213)) = 3.50, p < .01) and satisfaction with life (β = 0.06, t ((213)) = 4.87, p < .01) were positive predictors of functional coping. CONCLUSIONS: Scores for both functional and dysfunctional coping vary during medical education. The reasons for low coping scores after year one require further explanation. These findings represent a starting point for investigations into how to promote functional coping during early medical education.