Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32847624›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2020

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

Cassie M Hazell, Laura Chapman, Sophie F Valeix, Paul Roberts, Jeremy E Niven, Clio Berry

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 143 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Leading Practices to Safeguard the Mental Health of Investigators and Trainees in Research Teams.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cassie M HazellSchool of Social Sciences, University of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5868-9902
Laura ChapmanSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ, UK.
Sophie F ValeixResearch and Enterprise, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK.
Paul RobertsCentre for Higher Education and Equity Research, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK.
Jeremy E NivenSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QG, UK.
Clio BerryPrimary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School and School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9PH, UK. c.berry@sussex.ac.uk.
University of Sussex · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBUniversity of Westminster · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData from studies with undergraduate and postgraduate taught students suggest that they are at an increased risk of having mental health problems, compared to the general population. By contrast, the literature on doctoral researchers (DRs) is far more disparate and unclear. There is a need to bring together current findings and identify what questions still need to be answered.

methodsWe conducted a mixed methods systematic review to summarise the research on doctoral researchers' (DRs) mental health. Our search revealed 52 articles that were included in this review.

resultsThe results of our meta-analysis found that DRs reported significantly higher stress levels compared with population norm data. Using meta-analyses and meta-synthesis techniques, we found the risk factors with the strongest evidence base were isolation and identifying as female. Social support, viewing the PhD as a process, a positive student-supervisor relationship and engaging in self-care were the most well-established protective factors.

conclusionsWe have identified a critical need for researchers to better coordinate data collection to aid future reviews and allow for clinically meaningful conclusions to be drawn. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42018092867.

Indexed as

Mental HealthStudentsFemaleHumansMaledoctoral researchersMental healthPhD studentsPostgraduate researchersSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32847624
PMCPMC7450565
OpenAlexW3080127855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.