ArticleBMJ open2026
Global gaps in how we assess undergraduate medical students' mental health: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMental health problems among undergraduate medical students are a major global public health concern that emerge early during training and are shaped by demanding educational environments, emotional stressors and organisational pressures. Although research has expanded rapidly, the literature remains fragmented across themes, regions and methods. This scoping review aims to map the global quantitative literature on medical students' mental health and identify gaps in scope, geography, methodology and equity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We will include quantitative studies assessing mental health among undergraduate medical students. MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), the Cochrane Library (Wiley) and PsycINFO (Ovid) will be searched without date or language restrictions using a keyword-based search strategy. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and extract data using a standardised form. Data will include publication year, country, study design, sample size, mental health measures, thematic domains and patterns of collaboration. Mental health domains will be classified using an a priori thematic framework encompassing psychological symptoms and distress, psychological resources, academic environment, social support and physical health and lifestyle factors. Equity-related variables (sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) will be operationalised based on analytical use. Results will be synthesised descriptively using tables and visualisations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through publication and presentations. The dataset and code will be openly available on publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: Protocol registration will be made available online via the Open Science Framework (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/2EHNU).
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.