The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet; 2 of the 71 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model
Open accessAbstract
To gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to anxiety among PhD students and the reasons for poor regulation in the current situation, this paper analyses the existing literature on anxiety among PhD students using Green's model. It also compares and evaluates various methods of regulating anxiety. The literature review to extract information on the causes and levels of anxiety, methods and outcomes of anxiety intervention and regulation, and to make comparisons. The study reveals that the phenomenon of PhD students' anxiety has intensified globally in recent years, especially after the end of the epidemic. PhD students experience anxiety due to research pressure, economic pressure, future development, and interpersonal pressure. The main influencing factors are currently the relationship with the supervisor, development prospects, social support, and peer comparison. Among the stress relief methods, the regulation of self-relaxation was found to have better effects on mild anxiety, such as positive thinking, meditation, yoga and physical exercise can be helpful for emotion release then help focus on problem solved. Whereas severe anxiety may require institutional and pharmacological support, also including using psychological therapy such as behavioral cognitive therapy and systematic desensitization methods. For university, competence to provide course-assisted guidance, such as writing groups, peer support, and time management, is also important. Academic communities should pay attention to the guidance on academic fairness. However, PhD students are often unaware of the resources available to them for coping with stress and may not take the initiative to seek psychological counseling or institutional assistance. Therefore, PhD students should receive support from various sources, be guided to express their thoughts, and receive additional education and academic assistance to manage stress. This will enhance their confidence and aid in improving their scientific research.
Verified 2026-11-11 · 4 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This narrative review applies Green’s PRECEDE-PROCEED model to synthesize literature on PhD student anxiety, its contributing factors, and regulation strategies. It concludes that mild anxiety may respond to self-regulation such as exercise, meditation, and yoga, while severe anxiety often requires institutional, psychological, and pharmacological support.
Key findings
- PhD anxiety is described as intensifying globally, especially after the epidemic, with pressures from research, economics, future development, and interpersonal relationships; the main influencing factors identified are supervisor relationship, development prospects, social support, and peer comparison.
- Among epidemiological figures cited, a 2019 *Nature* survey of 6,300 PhD students found 72% of international PhD students were satisfied and 36% sought help for anxiety or depression linked to their PhD, while in China 55% expressed satisfaction and 40% sought help; a Chinese study reported a 24.76% anxiety detection rate among 315 medical doctors.
- Social/environmental pressures include a 48% increase in Chinese national PhD enrollment from 2009 to 2018 alongside a 22.65% decline in CSSCI publication volume; about 80% of 567 journals examined showed downward publication volume, with 48% decreasing by over 20%.
- Regulation effects: self-relaxation was found to work better for mild anxiety, while severe anxiety may require institutional and pharmacological support, including behavioral cognitive therapy and systematic desensitization; a 5-day, 30-minute mindfulness meditation program including 15 min of mindfulness practice significantly improved stress coping, reduced anxiety symptoms, and enhanced academic focus.
Methods
- Narrative review using Green’s PRECEDE-PROCEED model, analyzing influencing factors from PRECEDE and evaluating intervention programs from PROCEED.
- Searched PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest for English-language studies and Wanfang, VIP, and CNKI for Chinese-language studies, using keywords “anxiety” AND “PhD” AND “regulation” from inception to March 2024.
- Based on PRISMA 2020 identification, 48 studies were included, comprising cross-sectional studies, intervention research, and qualitative interviews; the review reports only three interventional studies, all with small sample sizes and non-RCT designs.
Limitations
- Stated: the reviewed literature primarily engages case studies, qualitative research, and cross-sectional surveys, identifying only three interventional studies, all noted for small sample sizes and non-RCT designs.
- Stated: future research should extend to cross-cultural comparative analyses and longitudinal investigations.
- Evident from the text: the review is narrative rather than a systematic meta-analysis, and no formal quality appraisal of the included 48 studies is described, limiting causal or pooled-effect conclusions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
50 Own interpretation · 21 Not checked yet · 20 Sources not found · 18 No full text of the sources · 10 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Instead, studies have examined the general population, revealing that compared to inactive adults, those engaging in half the recommended amount of physical activity—equating to 4.4 marginal metabolic equivalent task hours per week (mMET-h/wk)—observed an 18% reduced risk of depression.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Pearce et al., 2022 source
The Results (Dose-Response Analyses) state that, relative to adults reporting no activity, those accumulating 4.4 mMET-h/wk—half the recommended volume—had an 18% lower risk of depression. The source describes this as an association, consistent with the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the stress relief methods, the regulation of self-relaxation was found to have better effects on mild anxiety”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-regulation proves effective in reducing stress during the resistance period, with its primary purpose being the accumulation of strength.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Green model, specifically the PRECEDE-PROCEED model, has been effectively used in the field of health promotion evaluation (Didehvar et al., 2016; Payne et al., 2016).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The factors causing anxiety vary slightly among different PhD groups.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Workshops such as the Anxiety Management Workshop and the Paper Writing Workshop yielded positive outcomes.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“some PhD students, for example, relieve stress by smoking and drinking.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blue et al., 2016 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“For instance, the “Direct Ph.D. track from Master's” pathway presents unique academic pressures due to the shorter duration of academic training after the master's stage (Shi, 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shi, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The surge in postgraduate enrollments and the pursuit of professional advancement have intensified the pressure to publish in high-quality journals (Liu et al., 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liu et al., 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“Research indicates that the combination of objective support, support utilization, and negative coping styles can collectively account for 18.6% of the variance in PhD students' mental health (Lu et al., 2012).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lu et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The economic disparity compared to peers who have entered the workforce contributes to a pervasive “sense of failure.” (Bazrafkan et al., 2016; Charles et al., 2022)”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interpersonal relationships and social isolation play a significant role in inducing academic burnout among PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Peer pressure, conflicts, and negative feedback from colleagues can lead to distraction from scientific research.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, adults meeting the recommended physical activity threshold of 8.8 mMET-h/wk experienced a 25% lower risk of depression.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pearce et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unconscious comparisons and consolation may exacerbate feelings of incompetence and anxiety (Zhong et al., 2011; Hazell et al., 2020).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited vacation time, coupled with an intense desire for success, leads some PhD students to forego holidays, engaging in overtime work.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Current situations, such as the death of a loved one or papers not meeting graduation requirements, also impact their anxiety levels (Liu et al., 2020).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liu et al., 2020 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“The educational background and occupation of the mother, along with family and social status, impact PhD students' emotional well-being (Feng and Zhang, 2017).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feng and Zhang, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Without addressing the underlying stressor, the sense of worry is likely to re-emerge soon (Bazrafkan et al., 2016).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bazrafkan et al., 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The “PhD cultivation system” emerges as a critical factor contributing to PhD anxiety, directly translating into the phenomenon of “graduation pressure” for PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The escalating demand has strained the availability of core journals, rendering the publication process more challenging.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PhD express anxiety about future career scenarios, including graduation, work prospects, and relationships (Wang et al., 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al., 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This stage is particularly suitable for PhD students in the alert and resistant stages, preventing their progression into the failure stage.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Compared to master's degree students, PhD students experience more severe anxiety (Divaris et al., 2012).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Divaris et al., 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“70% said they spent more than 40 h a week on their projects (Woolston, 2022).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Woolston, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Poor time management, exacerbated by additional tasks beyond scientific research, further compounds anxiety among PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The absence of opportunities to share their concerns with others exacerbates negative emotions (Guo, 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guo, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The inability to meet set tasks intensifies the already substantial pressure associated with scientific research (Wang, 2016; Wang et al., 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Additionally, the professional type and identity developed during undergraduate studies serve as predisposing factors for anxiety (Bazrafkan et al., 2016; Van Laethem et al., 2016).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mild anxiety, commonly experienced by PhD candidates, is often resolved at this stage, positioning individuals in the “best alert period” for optimal results.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This stage is beneficial for PhD students transitioning from the resistance stage to the failure stage.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Physiologically, adverse responses trigger a triple reaction involving endocrine changes (e.g., adrenal gland enlargement), immune system alterations (e.g., thymic gland degeneration), and digestive system impacts (e.g., gastric erosion formation) (Tachè, 2014).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tachè, 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the advanced cognitive capabilities of PhD students, their anxiety often roots from continuous negative feedback in the cognitive evaluation process.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Family factors, encompassing marital considerations and traditional family cognitive factors, influence emotional regulation.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feng and Zhang, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Strength training and yoga seem to be the most acceptable modalities (Noetel et al., 2024).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Noetel et al., 2024 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“more than a third (35%) of respondents said their projects did not meet their initial expectations”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Woolston, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failure to manage stress during the resistance period in the PhD stage may lead to negative responses during the exhaustion period, potentially resulting in severe consequences.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cultural factors contribute to marriage anxiety among single female PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guo, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Engaging in activities like talking with friends, eating, watching TV, socializing, exercising, sleeping, aromatherapy, drinking, shopping, smoking, massage, seeking treatment, meditation, yoga, and taking medication may offer only temporary relief from stress.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bazrafkan et al., 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Epidemiological surveys further illuminate variations in anxiety levels among PhD students based on factors such as age, undergraduate specialization, gender, educational background, urban-rural origin, academic discipline (social science vs. natural science), and the classification of universities”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wu, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“External social support, such as the “stocking” phenomenon among tutors, wherein they may overestimate the PhD students' abilities, and peer and family support, can serve as buffers against individual psychological distress, consequently reducing PhD students' anxiety levels (Sorrel et al., 2020).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sorrel et al., 2020 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual and institution-assisted regulation efforts have shown promise in alleviating PhD anxiety.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies emphasize the significance of the “peer group” mode guided by mentors, providing PhD students with essential social support not necessarily available within the academic setting (Williams et al., 2017).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The writing group's peer environment further provided robust social and emotional support (Guo, 2017).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo, 2017 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The attention level improvement post-training was also conducive to academic research concentration (Noble et al., 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Noble et al., 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 50
- Probably not a substantial claim. 46
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Overall, literature indicates that positive emotions from blog reading outweigh negative emotions, with mentor guidance often leading PhD students from anxiety to positivity (Evans and Stevenson, 2011).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Evans and Stevenson, 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (A Journey of Relationships: Finding Support for Doctoral Study; page unavailable) and Discussion link supportive supervision with students’ confidence and reduced anxiety. The paper does not address blog reading or compare positive and negative emotions from it, and it does not establish that mentor guidance often moves students from anxiety to positivity. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Existing research has not specifically focused on doctoral students utilizing exercise as a means to alleviate anxiety.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature reviewed in this article primarily engages with case studies, qualitative research, and cross-sectional surveys, identifying only three interventional studies, all noted for their small sample sizes and non-RCT designs.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 4 Conclusion and prospects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, there may be adjustments to the university promotion system or clear industry planning to provide PhD students with increased clarity regarding their future prospects (Feng, 2012).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feng, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“PhD students and their groups often exhibit vague cognition regarding the significance of reading (Liu, 2019), lack knowledge about stress and coping adjustments, and underestimate potential difficulties in the reading process.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Liu, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Economic pressures arise from the absence of working income for full-time PhD candidates, reduced income for those pursuing on-the-job PhD's and inadequate rewards for scientific research.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The psychological manifestations include anxiety and withdrawal, hindering effective problem-solving and exacerbating the source of pressure, leading to further damage.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Approximately 80% of the 567 journals examined showed a downward trend in publication volume, with 48% experiencing a decrease of over 20% (Wang, 2022).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wang, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mechanism-assisted regulation aids in breaking this cognitive cycle, contributing to a reduction in anxiety levels.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Given that educational issues are rooted in social systems, the development of educational policies necessitates careful consideration within these broader social contexts (Wang, 2016).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wang, 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Behind anxiety often lies the potential for depression, which may manifest in atypical forms such as “hidden depression.””
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it is also possible to cultivate new good habits to replace the original bad habits and to gradually consolidate these good habits in a long-term process.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Insufficient confidence in overcoming challenges, confusion about future prospects, and pressure related to paper publishing and estimated graduation time further contribute to anxiety.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, upon entering society, particularly within the realms of universities and research institutions, PhD students grapple with the challenges of socialization and adjustment.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Management Reform Assistance, such as the emphasis on foreign language articles for national project declarations, necessitates colleges and universities to enhance conditions for PhD graduation.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Metacognitive strategies mitigate learning disruptions arising from reluctance to draft or modify writing, fostering smoother academic progress and minimizing self-doubt.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tan and Chen, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The nature of PhD work compounds anxiety due to the absence of timely positive feedback, the monotonous repetition of tasks, and prolonged periods of experimentation without favorable results.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, a 5-day, 30-minute mindfulness meditation program, including 15 min of mindfulness practice (Noble et al., 2019), significantly improved students' ability to cope with stress, reduced anxiety symptoms, and enhanced academic focus.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Noble et al., 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Addressing sources of pressure with high variability or low variability poses challenges for immediate change or removal.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There has been a rising prevalence of anxiety and depression among PhD the whole world.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Conversely, for Ph.D. students in medications, grappling with the frequent organization of information and the delicate balance between clinical work and scientific research, not only experience individual anxiety but also contribute to a broader phenomenon of “group anxiety” (Xu and Yang, 2020).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Xu and Yang, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Schools can regulate teacher guidance and oversee training to mitigate “stocking” behaviors among students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feng, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if universities provide a good alternative, such as leading them in exercise, meditation or reading books, these methods can help people relax, relieve stress and better meet their inner needs.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the context of China, the decade from 2009 to 2018 witnessed a 48% increase in national PhD enrollment, while the publication volume in Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) journals declined by 22.65%.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wang, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This form of depression is challenging to detect due to its seemingly normal social functioning.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-regulation demonstrated effectiveness in improving mild anxiety, while severe cases benefitted from cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction through institutional adjustment.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expectations from PhD student groups, families, universities, governments, and nations at large place significant demands on PhD education.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Challenges in this phase include the dependence on persistence for stress reduction, reluctance by some students to commit due to time constraints, fear of disclosure, and resistance to seeking psychological counseling based on cultural factors.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The school's insufficient provision of resources for stress education and psychological counseling further hinders effective problem-solving.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This cascade of challenges may lead to escalating anxiety, pushing individuals into a stage of failure accompanied by severe physical and mental reactions, and potentially contributing to the “pretender syndrome” involving self-denial (Inouye, 2021).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Inouye, 2021 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These mentoring groups create a non-competitive space where PhD students can share experiences, discuss challenges related to graduate school, laboratories, and career planning, thus enhancing their overall wellbeing.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, a vicious circle may emerge, as high-anxiety individuals find it challenging to achieve self-forgiveness (Fan, 2017).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fan, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group interactions enable students to form peer groups for discussion, fostering a collaborative environment that helps alleviate anxiety during the scientific research process.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“High-variability approaches involve active participation in activities, seeking external assistance, and altering lifestyle and thought patterns, encompassing aspects like time management, cognitive enhancement, and improvement of research abilities (Meehan et al., 2023).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meehan et al., 2023 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mentoring, both individual and in groups, provides crucial social support in the form of emotional, informational, and evaluative assistance.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The findings suggest that if less active adults had adhered to the current physical activity guidelines, approximately 11.5% of depression cases could have been averted (Pearce et al., 2022)).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pearce et al., 2022 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their bodies are used to this pattern and their subconscious will resist any change.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“And for depression, exercise is effective in proportion to the intensity prescribed.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Noetel et al., 2024 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Low-variability behavior is characterized by an internal aversion to unfamiliar circumstances, resistance to changing original ideas, and avoidance of tackling challenging problems through thoughtful consideration (Murguía Burton and Cao, 2022).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murguía Burton and Cao, 2022 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assessment of anxiety was conducted using consistent measurement methods.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this detection rate appears to underestimate the actual prevalence.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies have indicated PhD have high levels of anxiety the whole world, especially among medical PhD students, particularly in clinical fields.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mao, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A global consensus acknowledges an increasing prevalence of anxiety among doctors worldwide.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For instance, an anxiety detection rate of 24.76% was observed among 315 medical doctors (Tan and Chen, 2018).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tan and Chen, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such as positive thinking, meditation, yoga and physical exercise can be helpful for emotion release then help focus on problem solved.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests a lack of judgment ability, metacognitive skills, and awareness of seeking external help.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exposure to occasional “negative information” in organizational management processes contributes to concerns about the future, leading to anticipatory avoidance and anxiety among PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.4 Management policy assessment: for academic system and management policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Pressures stem from academic tasks, future career prospects, and publication demands (Mao, 2014).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mao, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Strained relationships with teachers and peers, coupled with a lack of emotional support, heighten the risk of burnout (He et al., 2020).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In severe cases, individuals may experience a sense of entrapment and exhibit suicidal tendencies.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When faced with stressors, individuals typically employ three primary coping strategies—problem solving, emotional management, and avoidance.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main influencing factors are currently the relationship with the supervisor, development prospects, social support, and peer comparison.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PhD students experience anxiety due to research pressure, economic pressure, future development, and interpersonal pressure.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The evaluation tools employed in this study included a general conditions questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (Xu and Yang, 2020), the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) (Fan, 2017), and the PhD Psychological Pressure Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Guo, 2017).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Xu and Yang, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fan, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A lack of comfort, minimal leisure, and limited engagement in social activities contribute to the PhD students' anxiety (Hazell et al., 2020).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hazell et al., 2020 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, poor coping mechanisms can result in a state of physical and mental collapse, often accompanied by anxiety that may evolve into depression.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The findings revealed a 72% satisfaction rate among international PhD students, with 36% seeking assistance for anxiety or depression linked to their PhD pursuits (Woolston, 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Woolston, 2019 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Management policies can play a crucial role in supporting PhD students by appropriately adjusting graduation criteria for PhD dissertations (He et al., 2018).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.1 Implementation of targeted intervention program
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites He et al., 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study reveals that the phenomenon of PhD students' anxiety has intensified globally in recent years, especially after the end of the epidemic.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the face of repeated setbacks, PhD students may develop learned helplessness and anticipatory grief, diminishing motivation for persistence and efforts.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas severe anxiety may require institutional and pharmacological support, also including using psychological therapy such as behavioral cognitive therapy and systematic desensitization methods.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Limited psychological support institutions, coupled with societal reluctance to seek help, exacerbate the challenges faced by these students (Guo, 2019).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.1. Social and environmental assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guo, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individuals experiencing “high-functioning depression” or “smiling depression” may outwardly function well socially while harboring internal struggles.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The evolution of individual psychological self-consciousness is closely intertwined with external environmental changes.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.3 Educational and ecological diagnosis: for self-evaluation and academic environment
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, the high-level task of publishing an article with its lengthy cycle can be emotionally taxing, particularly when manuscripts face multiple rejections.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This regulation supports the psychological and academic abilities of PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The Ministry of Education has regulated tutor guidance for PhD, including specifying the time and frequency of guidance sessions (group meetings).
In the paper
“When emotional management fails, some individuals may resort to avoidance, as evidenced by a study where 37% of students in a vocational DPH project contemplated giving up (Hlabse et al., 2016).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hlabse et al., 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If they are not allowed to smoke, and there is no other alternative pastime to satisfy their inner needs, then this habit is difficult to change.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, only 55% of PhD students in China expressed satisfaction with their PhD careers, with 40% seeking help for anxiety or depression stemming from academic challenges.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 2 PRECEDE stage: assessment of PhD students' anxiety > 2.2 Epidemiology and behavioral diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Woolston, 2019 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of a cognitive evaluation and selection mechanism leads to surface-level problem-solving through consultation, without addressing root causes.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.2 Process and impact evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these methods may provide some relief for up to 30% of the population, PhD students still face significant challenges related to anxiety, social support, and self-regulation.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 4 Conclusion and prospects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, employing the PRECEDE-PROCEED model can enable researchers to identify a broader range of influencing factors and develop more comprehensive intervention strategies.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 4 Conclusion and prospects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach ensures that graduates can adapt to society and successfully conduct independent scientific research or other work post-graduation.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, this approach not only highlights the importance of institutional support in fostering a healthy academic environment but also underscores the need for ongoing research and intervention development tailored to the unique challenges faced by PhD students.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 4 Conclusion and prospects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Currently, it is common for PhD students to experience anxiety and require psychological support and problem-solving assistance.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These challenges include poor adherence to exercise and medication regimens, mistrust of psychological counseling services, and inadequate coping skills in dealing with the pressures and challenges of graduation.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 4 Conclusion and prospects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, studies also caution that while individuals may quickly recover from temporary stress, there may be “secondary effects” after the stress event (Van Laethem et al., 2017).”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 3 PROCEED stage: anxiety regulation and effects for PhD students > 3.3 Result evaluation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Laethem et al., 2017 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maintaining and enhancing the psychological well-being of PhD students requires more than just curricular training programs; it necessitates the support and transformative efforts of the organization.”
§ A narrative review of anxiety regulation in PhD students based on Green model > 4 Conclusion and prospects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: These methods may provide some relief for up to 30% of the population.
- Rests on an assumption: Currently, it is common for PhD students to experience anxiety and require psychological support and problem-solving assistance.
The paper relies on this without support.
At present, the anxiety of PhD students has not been alleviated, and even the prevalence of anxiety is more serious.
“But at present, the anxiety of PhD students has not been alleviated, and even the prevalence of anxiety is more serious.”
The paper relies on this without support.
PhD students are often unaware of the resources available to them for coping with stress and may not take the initiative to seek psychological counseling or institutional assistance.
“However, PhD students are often unaware of the resources available to them for coping with stress and may not take the initiative to seek psychological counseling or institutional assistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Green model is suitable for analyzing anxiety among PhD students.
“Therefore, this paper uses Green's model for analysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Ministry of Education has regulated tutor guidance for PhD, including specifying the time and frequency of guidance sessions (group meetings).
“The Ministry of Education has regulated tutor guidance for PhD, including specifying the time and frequency of guidance sessions (group meetings).”
The paper relies on this without support.
These methods may provide some relief for up to 30% of the population.
“While these methods may provide some relief for up to 30% of the population, PhD students still face significant challenges related to anxiety, social support, and self-regulation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently, it is common for PhD students to experience anxiety and require psychological support and problem-solving assistance.
“Currently, it is common for PhD students to experience anxiety and require psychological support and problem-solving assistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Major universities play a crucial role in providing institutional support for cognitive responses through professional psychological counseling services.
“Major universities play a crucial role in providing institutional support for cognitive responses through professional psychological counseling services.”
Citations
Cites
Association Between Physical Activity and Risk of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Pearce, M., Garcia, L., Abbas, A., Strain, T., Schuch, F. B., Golubic, R., Kelly, P., Khan, S., Utukuri, M., Laird, Y., et al. (2022) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0609 · Cited by 1,332
Noetel, M., Sanders, T., Gallardo-Gómez, D., Taylor, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., van den Hoek, D., Smith, J. J., Mahoney, J., Spathis, J., Moresi, M., et al. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-075847 · Cited by 707
Theories of practice and public health: understanding (un)healthy practices
Blue, S., Shove, E., Carmona, C., & Kelly, M. P. (2016) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2014.980396 · Cited by 374
Woolston, C. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03459-7 · Cited by 277
Doctoral students’ well-being: a literature review
Schmidt, M., & Hansson, E. (2018) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being · doi:10.1080/17482631.2018.1508171 · Cited by 244
Hazell, C. M., Chapman, L., Valeix, S. F., Roberts, P., Niven, J. E., & Berry, C. (2020) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01443-1 · Cited by 138
Liu, C., Wang, L., Qi, R., Wang, W., Jia, S., Shang, D., Shao, Y., Yu, M., Zhu, X., Yan, S., et al. (2019) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s195131 · Cited by 118
Self-citationPositive factors related to graduate student mental health
Charles, S. T., Karnaze, M. M., & Leslie, F. M. (2022) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.1080/07448481.2020.1841207 · Cited by 87
Stress and burnout in postgraduate dental education
Divaris, K., Polychronopoulou, A., Taoufik, K., Katsaros, C., & Eliades, T. (2012) · European Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2011.00715.x · Cited by 80
Postdocs under pressure: ‘Can I even do this any more?’
Woolston, C. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03235-y · Cited by 79
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Fan, 2017, A Study on the Relationship Between PhD' Self-Forgiveness and Anxiety
- Feng, 2012, Doctoral supervisors, doctoral students, scientific research recapitulation, and miscellaneous talks - Talking about “anxiety” in scientific research, Sci. Technol. Rev.
- Feng, 2017, A study on influential factors to psychological anxiety of doctoral students at school based on grounded theory, Graduate Educ. Res., 11, 41, 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1663.2017.03.009 · DOI
- Guo, 2019, A sociological Interpretation of the Marital Residual Dilemma of Single Female Doctoral Students
- He, 2020, Doctoral students' knowledge anxiety in multidimensional perspective and resolution strategy, Graduate Educ. Res., 22, 22, 10.19834/j.cnki.yjsjy2011.2020.01.04 · DOI
- He, 2018, Approaches to the social anxiety of female doctoral students, J. Hebei Norm. Univ, 20, 56, 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.ese.2018.01.009 · DOI
- Liu, 2019, Investigation and analysis of the current situation of depression and anxiety symptoms in doctoral students and influencing factors
- Liu, 2010, Analysis report on doctoral anxiety cases, Social Psychol. Sci., 25, 112
- Lu, 2012, Relationship between psychological health status of doctoral students and social support and coping styles, Chin. J. Health Psychol., 20, 1397
- Mao, 2014, Analysis and countermeasures of mental health and stress of doctoral students
- Shi, 2019, A case study on the academic stress problem of pervasive doctoral students
- Tan, 2018, Current status and influencing factors analysis of psychological health of medical doctoral students, Guangdong Med. J., 39, 443, 10.3969/j.issn.1001-9448.2018.03.031 · DOI
- Wang, 2018, Application of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model in health education: a literature review, Chinese Nurs. Manage, 18, 570, 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2018.04.030 · DOI
- Wei, 2015, Mechanism research on the influence of doctoral students' psychological capital on scientific research performance
- Wu, 2019, Survey of doctoral students' academic emotional status and enhancement strategies, Higher Educ. Expl., 45, 24, 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2019.01.005 · DOI
- Xu, 2020, Survey and analysis of anxiety status and influencing factors of doctoral students, Med. J. Chin. People's Liber. Army, 38, 54
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yan, T., Yu, H., & Tang, J. (2024) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs14111073 · Cited by 7
Xiao, H. F., Li, X., Chen, X., Guo, J., & Liu, J. (2025) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-03505-2 · Cited by 6
This Is How I Felt: Crafting Conductive Wool Artefacts as an Embodied Practice to Regulate Anxiety
Economidou, E. (2025) · International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/3689050.3706011 · Cited by 5
XIE, S., Yu, S., & Xu, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1794711 · Cited by 3
Han, Z., O’Regan, J. P., Bai, X., Lee, J. C.-K., & Gu, M. M. (2026) · Discourse Context & Media · doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2026.100975 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, Y., Yu, A., Ma, H., Zhao, Y., Liu, X., Zhai, H., & Gao, Y.
- Affiliations
- Macau University of Science and Technology (MO)
- Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
- Southern Medical University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhai, Huimin
- Gao, Yulin
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2024-07-09
- Volume
- 15
- Pages
- 1351386-1351386
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11264308
- OpenAlex
- W4400460116
- Semantic Scholar
- af694a4c6ec738fb08521bb56fd8d826b02a613d
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Keywords
- doctoral students, anxiety, anxiety regulation, GREEN model, research pressure, supervisor-student relationship, social support, peer comparison, stress relief method, relaxation techniques, cognitive behavioral therapy, systematic desensitization, psychological counseling, academic support, post-pandemic
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
