4.2 Article

Efficacy of Williams LifeSkills training for improving psychological health: A pilot comparison study of Chinese medical students

期刊

ASIA-PACIFIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 161-169

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/appy.12084

关键词

LifeSkills training; medical student; psychological health

资金

  1. National Key Technology R&D Program in the 11th Five Year Plan of China [2007BAI17B03, 2009BAI77B02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionHigh stress levels and mental health problems are common among medical students. Behavioral interventions aimed at preventing mental health problems among medical students have been recommended in managing stress during their study period. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of Williams LifeSkills training (WLST) for improving psychological health of Chinese medical students. MethodsSixty medical students were chosen as the study group (n=30) and the control group (n=30). The study group completed the 8-week WLST, while the controls did not take any training course. All subjects were assessed before and after the 8-week training period using the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Trait Coping Style Questionnaire (TCSQ), Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) and Self-Esteem Scale (SES). The data of 29 students in the study group and 26 students in the control group were qualified for statistical analysis in the current study. ResultsGroup-time interactions were significant for the ISEL total (P=0.008), ISEL appraisal (P=0.002), SES (P=0.002), SAS (P=0.005) and SDS (P=0.032). Post-hoc paired Student's t-tests showed that all these measures improved significantly (P<0.05) in the study group but were unchanged in the control group. DiscussionIn our study, a behavioral intervention - WLST - improved psychological health of the study group. If confirmed in further trials, these results suggest that WLST could be a means of improving mental health of medical students as well as other groups in China.

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