Trial reportAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2025
Career coaching to support medical student career decision-making: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shifting resource dominance in career decision-making difficulties: a competitive mediation model of resilience and general self-efficacy among Chinese university students.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- 'Worth … the Nightmares'? A Qualitative Study of Early-Career Healthcare Workers' Wellbeing and Career Decisions After Starting Work During Covid-19.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
- The relationship between psychological resilience and employability among higher vocational college students: the chain mediating effects of perceived social support and career decision-making self-efficacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated whether career coaching can reduce medical students' career decision-making stress through clarifying students' self-concept, increasing career decision self-efficacy, and lowering perceived time pressure to make a career decision. We evaluated the effectiveness of a coaching intervention (including five individual coaching sessions over eight months) using a randomized-waitlist controlled trial design. Participating medical master's students completed a first survey (T1). The intervention condition (n = 94) started the coaching program right away. The waitlist-control condition (n = 130) started after 8.5 months. Participants in the intervention condition completed a second (T2) survey three weeks after their last coaching session. Participants in the waitlist-control condition received the second survey 8.5 months after registration. Data were analyzed using multilevel path modelling. The total effect of coaching on career decision-making stress was significantly negative (-0.17; 95% CI [-0.31, -0.06]), reflecting a small to moderate effect size. This total effect was partially mediated (i.e., explained) by career decision self-efficacy (-0.02; 95% CI [-0.06, -0.00]). Exploratory analyses suggested that coaching only clarified the self-concept of students with a relatively negative coaching attitude at T1. Moreover, coaching resulted in more changes in career choices and an increase in students' career choice certainty. This study demonstrates that coaching is effective in reducing medical students' career decision-making stress and increasing their career decision self-efficacy and career choice certainty. High-quality career decision-making is important because it is associated with higher job satisfaction, well-being, and performance. Medical schools may consider providing coaching to students to support their career decision-making.
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.