RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 What medical students think about measurement of their wellbeing and the implications for pastoral support: cross sectional survey and qualitative interviews
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.24.21262526
DO 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262526
A1 G Simons
A1 R Effah
A1 DS Baldwin
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/28/2021.08.24.21262526.abstract
AB Objectives To find out how, why and when medical students think wellbeing should be measured.Design A mixed methods study comprising a cross-sectional online survey (November 2020-March 2021) and semi-structured on-line interviews. Views on the frequency of availability for measurement, the format, type and purpose of measurement, and with whom wellbeing should be discussed were measured. When an outcome was scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale of agreement by ≥75% of participants it was considered critical, in line with COMET and GRADE processes for rating recommendations. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken on the interview transcripts by two independent researchers.Setting All Medicine programmes at University of Southampton.Participants Medical students from all years took part in the survey (n=118) and interviews (n=16).Results Participant demographics were similar to national medical student demographics. Most participants (94%) felt able to give 5 minutes to measure their wellbeing at least once a month. No single format of measurement was rated critical. Research, governance and individual feedback all reached the 75% threshold for the purpose being considered critically important. Only subjective assessments undertaken by the individual in real-time were rated as critically important (78.1%) measurement tools. Students selected that they would discuss their wellbeing with other medical students (n=87) nearly as often as they selected a member of the Faculty (n=104). Top determinants of wellbeing picked by medical students were energy, ability to do activities of daily living, and negative feelings. Five interview themes further explained these findings.Conclusions Five recommendations about self-care teaching, quality-assured pastoral and peer support, proactive wellbeing check-ins and demographic data are discussed in light of these findings. Methods to achieve them are suggested, which are medical student-centred, and which make use of existing resources.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis study provides new information on how, why and when medical students think their wellbeing should be measured.A mixed methods approach allowed the reasons behind the survey answers to be captured in ensuing interviews.Using the ≥75% a prior cut off for critical importance from COMET and GRADE allowed evidence-based recommendations for wellbeing measurement for medical students.It was not possible to recruit the number of students needed to make national inferences, although participant demographics were similar to national medical student demographics.A national cross-sectional survey would provide further evidence for medical schools in devising wellbeing provisions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialPreliminary work for Core Outcome Set development, registered with COMET: 1577.Funding StatementHealth Education England (HEE) South has provided financial support for a postgraduate student fellowship for 3 years.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:University of Southampton Ethics Research and Governance approval: 55730All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data supporting this study are openly available from the University of Southampton repository at (awaiting DOI) after thesis submission in January 2022, as the work forms part of a PhD.