4.2 Article

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG MEDICAL UNDERGRADUATES IN ANHUI PROVINCE OF CHINA

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2190/PM.42.1.c

关键词

depression; anxiety; social support; family function; undergraduate

资金

  1. China Medical Board of the United States (CMB)
  2. GENEVA GLOBAL PROJECT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety) among Chinese medical students and to find the possible relationships between psychological symptoms and social relationships. Methods: A sample of 10,140 medical students was investigated with a structured questionnaire, that included the Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Social Support Rating Scale, and Family APGAR Index (adaptability, partnership, growth, affection, resolve). Results: The present study revealed that 16.8% of the medical students suffered from depressive symptoms and 14.1% from anxiety symptoms. Female students were more likely to have anxiety, the second-year students had higher levels of psychological symptoms than the first-year students. Likewise, significant differences were found among college, satisfaction of specialty, and economic condition of the family in anxiety and depression symptoms. Social support, family function, and all dimensions were significantly negatively associated with depression and anxiety symptoms. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression showed that less social support, poor family function, the second-year students, and unsatisfactory specialty were associated with more psychological symptoms, after adjusting the effects of sex, age, and college. Conclusions: Medical students have a relatively high level of depression and anxiety symptoms. These findings support the hypothesis that if medical students are better supported and cared for, negative psychosocial consequences might be prevented or at least reduced. (Int'l. J. Psychiatry in Medicine 2011;42:29-47)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据