SynthesisF1000Research2024
University Dropout: A Systematic Review of the Main Determinant Factors (2020-2024).
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- University Dropout: A Systematic Review of the Main Determinant Factors (2020-2024).F1000Research · 2024Pooled it
- Factors associated with university dropout intention among health sciences students: the mediating role of academic burnout and satisfaction with education.BMC medical education · 2026Observational
- Article
- Validity and measurement invariance of theFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This research is a systematic review aimed at synthesizing scientific evidence on the causes of university dropout, focusing on the subcategories of vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects between 2020 and June 2024. Methods: Only articles addressing university dropout were considered, analyzing dimensions such as vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects. Articles published in indexed scientific journals with double-blind, double-blind peer, or open reviews between 2020 and June 2024 were included. The main databases used were Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. To assess the risk of bias in qualitative studies, the criteria from the article "Validity criteria for qualitative research: three epistemological strands for the same purpose" were used. For quantitative studies, the criteria from the article "Evaluating survey research in articles published in Library Science journals" were followed. For mixed-method studies, both sets of criteria were combined. Results: A total of 23 studies were included: 15 quantitative (65.22%), 3 qualitative (13.04%), and 5 mixed-method (21.74%). All studies (100%) addressed the subcategories of socioeconomic status and institutional aspects. Regarding the academic performance subcategory, 86% of the studies addressed it, while the vocational guidance subcategory was covered by 73.91% of the studies. Conclusions: Vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects are crucial for reducing university dropout. Providing adequate professional guidance, academic support, financial assistance, and strong institutional support is fundamental to improving student retention and academic success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.