Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contribution of the doctoral education environment to PhD candidates’ mental health problems: a scoping review

Mackie, Sylvia Anne, Bates, Glen William·2019·Higher Education Research & Development

Abstract

Recent research into the mental health of PhD candidates suggests that their high levels of stress could be caused in part or exacerbated by aspects of the doctoral education environment. However, the particulars of this environment have not been explored in consistent enough ways to provide a clear way forward for universities to respond to this issue. This article presents a systematic scoping review of the recent literature on this topic with the aims of collecting and consolidating the heterogeneous range of findings therein and providing a framework to coordinate further research and inform intervention design. Factors shown by the literature to contribute to stress in doctoral settings are presented, including problems in the supervisory relationship, lack of transparency of university processes, workload, role conflict, financial insecurity and uncertain career prospects. Analysis of the review sample indicates four main themes in this body of literature: shifting ideas about the range of environmental stressors and the relationships between them, a paucity of trialled interventions that target the range of known stressors, a lack of standardisation in instruments used for capturing the effects of stressors and evaluating interventions and finally, a need for comprehensive, agreed upon typologies – to integrate what is known about the issue and prioritise interventions. This article proposes guidelines to address these deficiencies, based on an ecological understanding…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07294360.2018.1556620

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1080/07294360.2018.1425979 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.28945/3862 · DOI
  3. Burkhart J., 2014, Journal of Integral Theory & Practice, 9, 55
  4. 10.1177/0092055X13502182 · DOI
  5. Hänggi-Niclasse C., 2017, Well-being in Education Systems
  6. 10.28945/1555 · DOI
  7. 10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00017 · DOI
  8. Hunter K. H., 2016, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 35
  9. 10.1353/csd.2006.0030 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.3200/JACH.56.2.109-118 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/02602938.2011.555816 · DOI
  12. Kaczan R., 2015, ‘It’s (not) all in the mind’: PhD students’ experiences, well-being, and mindfulness
  13. 10.1108/09654281111161248 · DOI
  14. La Touche R. A., 2017, Graduate students’ mental health: Departmental contexts as a source of differential risk
  15. Marais G. A., 2018, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 10.28945/3948 · DOI
  16. 10.1037/a0022624 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.5402/2012/934941 · DOI
  18. Rouse J., 2014, Mind Pad/Notes D’idées, 4, 38
  19. 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.005 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/0158037X.2010.515572 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1038/nbt.3490 · DOI
  22. 10.1080/09515070601043203 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Mackie, S. A., & Bates, G. W.
Venue
Higher Education Research & Development
Published
2018-12-15
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
565-578
ISSN
  • 0729-4360
  • 1469-8366
Cited by
160
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review