ArticlePloS one2026
A study protocol for mixed-methods evaluation of the structure, design, and availability of medical student wellbeing programs.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, there has been growing concern over the wellbeing and mental health of medical students in the United States, driven by the academic, personal, and professional challenges inherent in medical school. Recent data indicates that medical students experience higher rates of psychological stress, anxiety, and depression compared to the general population, with the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating these challenges. Medical student suicide, linked to burnout and depression, highlights the urgent need for effective wellbeing support. Despite the documented barriers to mental wellbeing, such as self-imposed pressures, imposter syndrome, stigma around help-seeking, and financial difficulties, medical student wellbeing programs remain understudied at the structural and design level.
methodsThis is a multi‑phase qualitative study (sequential-exploratory) that combines a web-based environmental scan and content analysis with key informant interviews and focus groups, using methodological triangulation to develop a framework for evaluating wellbeing programs. First, we will conduct a web-based content analysis of publicly available resources across medical school websites. We will identify key characteristics of wellbeing programs, such as mental health resources, structural well-being components, and culturally integrated approaches. Then, we will conduct key informant interviews with medical school administrative staff to discuss wellbeing programs in detail and hold focus group interviews with medical students to gather their perspectives on how to improve their health and wellbeing. Based on the findings from these three components, we will develop a comprehensive and standardized framework for evaluating medical school wellbeing programs that can be used across institutions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Approval was obtained from the NYU Langone Health Institutional Review Board (IRB ID: i25-00965). The content analysis results and qualitative themes extracted from key informant and focus group interviews will be made available to all study participants. They will also be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.