ArticleBMC medical education2026
Exploring academic mobbing among graduate nursing students: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMobbing in academic environments significantly affects individuals' professional and psychological well-being. Due to their position in the educational hierarchy, graduate students may be more vulnerable to mobbing.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine academic mobbing experiences among graduate nursing students and to explore the associated challenges and coping processes.
methodThis study used a mixed-methods design. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation analysis. A total of 209 graduate nursing students participated in the quantitative component of the study. Twenty graduate students were included in the qualitative research. Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews and analysed using Colaizzi's descriptive phenomenological method.
findingsQuantitative analyses revealed that doctoral students and research assistants had significantly higher total mobbing scores (p < 0.05), while female students reported significantly higher scores only in attacks on self-presentation and communication (p < 0.05). Qualitative findings indicated that communication barriers and professional pressures were prominent facilitators of mobbing. Qualitative analyses revealed that mobbing was primarily perpetrated by supervisors, administrators, and academic staff. In particular, interruptions, professional devaluation, excessive workload, and pressure via digital platforms were commonly reported. These findings highlight the role of academic hierarchy and tenure type in shaping mobbing experiences.
conclusionThe findings indicate that doctoral students and research assistants reported higher levels of academic mobbing, while female students were more vulnerable specifically to communication-based mobbing behaviors. Quantitative findings were complemented by qualitative data, which provided contextual insights into how participants perceived and reported mobbing experiences. However, this integration remains primarily interpretative and does not imply causal relationships between the identified factors and mobbing experiences. Specifically, mobbing was primarily experienced through communication barriers, professional pressures, and psychological coercion. These findings suggest consistency between quantitative and qualitative results and contribute to a better understanding of academic mobbing. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.