Skip to main content
Download PDF

Transforming stress program on medical students’ stress mindset and coping strategies: a quasi-experimental study

BMC Medical Education volume 23, Article number: 587 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Stress is a significant concern in medical education, and identifying effective ways to deal with stress may help with students’ mental health and professional development. This study aimed to examine the effects of the Transforming Stress Program (TSP) amongst first-year medical students on their stress mindset and coping strategies when confronted with stressors.

Methods

We conducted a quasi-experimental study at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A total of 409 first-year students at the Faculty of Medicine were divided into intervention group (205 students) and control group (204 students). The 10-week TSP was delivered as an extra-curricular course. The training adopts psychoeducation based on Dialectical Behavioral Therapy with mindfulness as a fundamental practice incorporated into each component of the program. The intervention group received the training in the first semester; the control group received identical program in the second semester. Stress Mindset Measurement and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced were measured before the intervention (T0), immediately after intervention on Intervention group (T1), and six months after intervention on Intervention group (T2).

Results

At T1, the intervention group showed 65% improvements in stress mindset scores and increases in coping strategies scores in six domains (Problem solving, Social support, Humor, Religion, Venting, and Self-distraction) and decreases in three (Avoidance, Substance use, and Self-blame). The effect sizes were significant in all outcomes (Cohen’s d > 0.2). Measurements of the control group did not change significantly in the same period. At T2, effects of the TSP were found decreased in some domains (Avoidance, Substance use, and Self-blame) compared to T1, but largely remained significantly better than T0.

Conclusions

The TSP is a feasible and effective approach that significantly enhanced medical students’ stress mindset and coping strategies. Some effects were still observable 6 months after the intervention. The relatively intensive intervention requires support of the school administration and staff.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Stress is a significant concern in medical training. Stressors come from academic workload, high self-expectation, financial burdens, and difficulties in working with seniors and patients in the clinical settings [1,2,3]. Prolonged stress influences students’ performance in schools, and later can lead to professional misconducts [4, 5]. There are different factors contributing to professional misconduct among students with distress. Stress may negatively affect students’ academic performance, which may lead to future poor clinical performance in the workplace setting. Previous studies also reported that prolonged stress may cause a decline in professionalism in patient care. Therefore, being exposed to excessive stress may lead to professional misconduct among medical students [5]. Moreover, studies show that high levels of stress in medical students lead to decreased empathy level in doctor-patient relationships and affect the quality of healthcare. Other negative consequences include mental health issues, substance use, and suicidal ideation and attempts [6]. Previous surveys among medical students in Vietnam reported prevalence of stress to be around 50%, while prevalence of depression ranged from 25% to above 50%. Furthermore, suicidal ideation was reported among 5.8–7.7% [7,8,9].

Over the past twenty years, stress management programs in medical training have gained increasing attention from medical educators and administrators [10,11,12,13]. Earlier interventions focused on methods to minimize stressful experiences, namely, intensity, frequency, and the duration of stressors, as well as techniques of relaxation and meditation when facing stressors [14,15,16]. Recent research shifted emphasis to the role of stress mindset in moderating the impact of stressors on health and productivity. In one study of Crum et al. in 2013, participants were randomized into “stress-is-enhancing” group, “stress-is-debilitating” group, and control group. Participants in the “stress-is-enhancing” group and “stress-is-debilitating” group were given three different videos about the effect of stress on health, on work-performance, and on learning/growth. Participants in the control group did not view any video. These videos were composed of words, music, and images [17]. After the intervention, participants in the “stress-is-enhancing” group showed increased stress mindset scores, while participants in the “stress-is-debilitating” group showed decreased stress mindset score. There was no significant change of stress mindset score in the control group. Findings also revealed that participants of the “stress-is-enhancing” groups decreased their scores of psychological symptoms, while increased work performance in both soft skills and hard skills. During the same period, there were no significant changes in these aspects in the other two groups. In 2023, Crum conducted another study on the effects of a 2-hour training named “Mindset Training Program”, which provided participants with knowledge about the nature of stress, both enhancing and debilitating. The participants were given a workbook to practice self-reflection afterwards, and were taught different strategies to adopt the stress-is-enhancing mindset in order to utilize the good side of stress [18]. After the intervention, in the intervention group, stress mindset score increased significantly with marginal increase in their work performance. In 2019. Keech conducted a study to evaluate the effect of changing stress mindset by an imagery intervention. Participants watched a series of videos, including balanced information about stress and the consequences of stress (both negatively and positively), and mental imagery exercise on the positive consequence of stress [19]. Findings from Keech’s study also demonstrated the effect of a mindset intervention on enhancing stress mindset. This effect was still observable after following up for two weeks.

Research showed that the way we perceive, evaluate, and cope with stressors would greatly influence downstream outcomes [17, 20,21,−22]. Stress mindset is conceptualized as the extent to which an individual holds the mindset that stress has either enhancing or debilitating consequences for various stress-related outcomes, resulting in different ways of appraising stress as either a challenge or a threat [17, 23]. Evidence shows that stress mindset is related to outcomes of stress, including health and well-being, learning and growth, as well as performance and productivity [20, 22, 24]. Intervention on stress mindset may be a promising approach to improve people’s response in the face of stress, which in turn would improve the ultimate outcomes in health, and work-related performance [17, 25].

Coping strategies are also important in shaping the association between the experience of stress and mental well-being [26, 27]. When confronted with stressors, coping strategies are people’s cognitive and behavioral efforts to overcome difficult situations. Studies suggest that students’ coping strategies during preclinical years would affect their future career satisfaction and ability to resist burnout [28, 29], implicating the essential role of coping skills training for medical students. Studies emphasized the importance of enhancing coping strategies for medical trainees, particularly during their early years of training, as adaptive coping strategies are associated with lower levels of burnout, emotional distress, and higher sense of accomplishments [30, 31].

Prior studies of stress management programs had inconsistent results, probably because of methodological weaknesses including the lack of control group and follow-up [32, 33]. Therefore, studies with well-validated assessment tools and appropriate design are in need to further validate the effectiveness of stress interventions, particularly in middle-income countries, where evidence is insufficient. In Vietnam, only one study reported an increase in medical students’ quality of life after receiving a mental well-being program. This program included activities in three levels as listed: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional level. On an intrapersonal level, they provided students with skill training, focusing on time management skills, communication skills, problem-solving skills, and stress management skills. On an interpersonal level, activities were held to enhance students’ sense of connection and belonging, which were activities to connect students with seniors and Student Association Unit. On an institutional level, they promoted counselling services and a mobile phone application to make counselling more accessible to students. Results showed students in intervention group had better scores in their well-being when compared to students in control group [34].

To fill the above gap, this study aims to examine the effects of the Transforming Stress Program (TSP) amongst first-year medical students in University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City (UMP). The TSP is a self-developed training program, adopting psychoeducation to reframe the stress mindset, and provide students with adaptive coping strategies. Findings from this study will contribute to the empirical evidence of effectiveness of the stress management programs in Vietnam and other low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

The intervention: the transforming stress program (TSP)

The program was developed by the research team based on existing stress management programs for students [11, 35,36,−37]. Our team included the principal investigator and two psychologists. After doing literature review on stress management programs, we decided to adopt approaches that work with students’ mindset and their coping strategies. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) were chosen because they have been utilized in adjusting people’s ways of thinking and behaving. We then built the three core objectives of the TSP, which were transforming stress mindset, improving adaptive coping strategies, and maintaining their practice after the training. The two psychologists worked on the content of each training session to achieve the training objectives. The principal investigator worked with the school leaders and school administrators to arrange the schedule for the TSP to be incorporated into the first-year student curriculum. We also had pilot training on 37 first-year students and their feedback was incorporated into the final TSP.

CBT and DBT models were applied to help participants recognize their stress mindset, immediate thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. DBT was shown to be effective in addressing different mental health and behavioral problems, particularly its function of enhancing people’s capabilities by promoting emotional regulation skills, interpersonal skills, and distress tolerance skills. While CBT focused on transforming students’ stress mindset into stress-is-enhancing mindset, we applied DBT to improve their coping strategies when confronting stressors [38]. Students then could label stress triggers, regulate their emotions, and make personal plans to cope with stress. Post-stress self-reflection, deep breathing, paired muscle relaxation, asking for help in time of need, writing gratitude journal, and developing new habit to take care of body and mind are the core coping skills that students were provided and encouraged to keep practicing. Mindfulness was fundamental practice and was incorporated into each component [39,40,41,42,43].

Through formal lectures, group discussion, problem-based learning, experience sharing, and following up by instructors, participants are encouraged to transform their stress mindset into “stress is enhancing” rather than “stress is debilitating”. Students were also provided with a variety of adaptive coping strategies. The TSP was held in five sessions; the first three were theory sessions (two hours each), and the last two were follow-up sessions (one hour each). Students were encouraged to practice between sessions and share their experience during the follow-up sessions facilitated by instructors. Instructors supported students throughout the intervention period via social media with recommendations for their challenges and concerns. The two instructors coordinated their activities and comments so to minimize variations. (The detailed course content of TSP is attached in Additional file 1_Transforming Stress Program’s Components)

Study design

A quasi-experimental study was conducted. A pilot study with 37 students was carried out to assess the feasibility of the TSP and for instrument validation. The intervention was modified based on feedbacks. The 10-week TSP was delivered to the intervention group in the first semester. In the second semester, the control group received the identical program. During the first semester, the control group served as the wait list control. We collected data at T1, immediately after the intervention on the intervention group, but not yet on the control group. The differences of the outcomes from T0 to T1 between the intervention group and control group would be analyzed to show the effects of the TSP. In Fig. 1, T1 was around the end of the first semester. Hence, the intervention group received the TSP training during the first semester (before T1), while the control group received the intervention in the second semester (after T1). Contamination may happen if students in the intervention group shared with students in control group about the TSP training, hence, we divided the intervention group and control group along the line of their class assignment. Because interaction among students in the same class was much more intensive than with those across classes, this design may minimize contamination between the two groups. However, any contamination will reduce, rather than increase, the estimated effect of the intervention. The intervention group was followed-up for a six-month period after the completion of the intervention (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Timeline of TSP and measurements in the intervention group and control group. TSP: transforming stress program. T0: before intervention on the Intervention group, T1: immediately after intervention on the Intervention group, T2: six months after intervention on the Intervention group Survey at T0: demographic characteristics, SMM, brief COPE. Survey at T1, T2: SMM, brief COPE

Full size image

Participants

Out of 420 first-year students at the Faculty of Medicine, 409 students agreed to participate in the study (participation rate 97%). Meanwhile, 11 students did not participate due to time conflicts with their personal schedules. The participants were divided into intervention and control groups based on their class assigned by the school, with 205 students in the intervention group and 204 students in the control group. The class assignment is based on students’ entrance exam scores and sex, with even distribution in mind.

Procedures

The principle investigator introduced the study in an orientation session attended by all first-year students. It is mandatory for first-year students to take extra-curricular courses; TSP was listed as one such course for this academic year and students were encouraged to take it and earn credits for the extra-curricular activities. The participants submitted written informed consent before participating in the TSP course.

The baseline data for both groups was collected before the intervention (T0), and the second data collection for both groups was conducted after the intervention group completed the training (T1). The follow-up measurements (T2) were conducted six months after T1 (see Fig. 1). The data was collected through online self-report questionnaires with paper-pencil forms on request. Surveys at T0 consisted students’ demographic data, stress status, Stress Mindset Measurement (SMM), and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief COPE).

Instruments and measurements

Stress mindset was measured by SMM, an eight-item self-report scale [17]. The score is between 0 and 4; a higher score corresponds to the “stress-is-enhancing” mindset. SMM in this study population had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75).

Coping strategies were measured by Brief COPE [44, 45] to assess individuals’ ways of coping with stressors. Factor analysis of data from this study suggested a revised inventory with 27 items, excluding item 20. The 9-factor structure had acceptable to good fits, including Problem-solving (7 items), Social support (4 items), Avoidance (4 items), Substance Use (2 items), Self-blame (2 items), Humor (2 items), Religion (2 items), Venting (2 items), and Self-distraction (2 items). Responses to the items were scored using a four-point Likert-style scale ranging from 1 (I usually don’t do this at all) to 4 (I usually do this a lot). A higher score represents a higher frequency of using that strategy.

This study was approved by the IRB of both National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and UMP, and an applicable guidelines for research with human subjects were followed.

Statistical analyses

We used RStudio [46] for data analyses. Descriptive statistics were presented by mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequency and percentage for categorical variables.

The four-month effects of the intervention were examined by analyzing the difference in outcomes from T0 to T1 between the intervention group and control group. We used linear regression models with intervention as a dummy variable. Univariate and multiple linear regressions were conducted to investigate the effects of intervention controlling for students’ demographic factors (sex, age, parental education, part-time job), stress-related factors (Covid-related stress, physical or psychological issues, acute stress event), or their levels of engagement during the intervention. The ten-month effects were measured only in the intervention group, after six months of follow-up. Paired T test was used to compare the scores of stress mindset and nine coping strategies between T2 and T1 in the intervention group. Paired T test was also utilized to compare these outcomes between T0 and T1 in both intervention and control group.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the participants

Table 1 presents baseline demographic characteristics of the 409 participants. Approximate 38% of the participants were female. More than 50% of their parents finished college or higher. The study was initiated in November 2020, before there was a surge in cases in 2021 which urged the government to issue a strict quarantine policy. Hence, only about 10% of students reported being stressed due to Covid-19. The intervention and control groups had similar demographic characteristics, except for mothers’ education status (p value < 0.01). At baseline, the most frequently used coping strategies were Self-distraction, Problem solving, and Social support, while Substance use was the least common strategy adopted by the participants. The pattern was similar for the two groups. However, the control group had higher Problem solving and Self-distraction scores and lower Avoidance score.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the participants
Full size table

The four-month effects of the transforming stress program

Table 2 shows the scores of stress mindset and the nine coping strategies among students in both intervention and control group before and after the intervention group received the TSP. In the intervention group, the scores of stress mindset and eight coping strategies (except for Substance use) were statistically different between before and after receiving the TSP training. The mean score of stress mindset increased by approximately 65%. The scores also increased in six domains of adaptive coping strategies: Problem solving (by 20%), Social support (by 22%), Humor (by 20%), Religion (by 17%), Venting (by 20%), and Self-distraction (by 8%). In contrast, the mean scores of maladaptive coping strategies dropped, ranging between 5% in Substance use to 25% in Self-blame. On the other hand, during the same period, among students in the control group, only the score of Substance use was found to significantly increase. The difference between the two groups suggests that the change we observed in the intervention group was the result of TSP, rather than some learning process or life-style changes brought about by the first year of medical education. The significance of these differences between the two groups is examined below (Table 3).

Table 2 The scores of stress mindset and coping strategies before and after the TSPa
Full size table

Table 3 shows the effects of TSP on stress mindset and coping strategies at the completion of the intervention; linear regression coefficients and Cohen’s d were used to estimate the effects and effect sizes. The analyses were adjusted for students’ demographic characteristics, stress-related factors (acute event stressor, Covid-related stress, psychosocial stress, physical stress), and the level of participant’s engagement in the TSP. For the stress mindset, the coefficient in the linear regression showed a significant increase of the score by 1.16 point (within the range between 0 and 4). In terms of adaptive coping strategies, within the range between 1 and 4, the coefficients indicated increased scores of Problem solving (by 0.59 point), Social support (by 0.6 point), and Venting (by 0.58 point). With a lesser extent, the scores of Humor, Religion, and Self-distraction increased by 0.48 point, 0.29 point, and 0.25 point, respectively. For the three maladaptive coping strategies, including Avoidance, Substance Use, and Self-blame, their scores significantly changed in the negative direction. The Cohen’s d indices are significant in all outcomes (d > 0.2), with the largest size effects found on Stress mindset, and Problem solving.

Table 3 The difference of changes in outcomes between the Intervention group and Control group at four-month
Full size table

The ten-month effects of the TSP

Table 4 shows the changes in outcomes six-month after the completion of TSP in the intervention group. Paired t test indicated significant changes of stress mindset and seven of the nine domains of coping strategies, except for Religion and Self-distraction. The mean difference of stress mindset score was 0.16, a 6% decrease from T1 to T2. For adaptive strategies, the scores of Problem solving, Social support, and Venting decreased by 0.72 point (23%), 0.46 point (15%), and 0.14 point (5%), while the score of Humor increased by 0.52 point (21%). Regarding maladaptive strategies, the scores of Avoidance, Substance use, and Self-blame were higher at T2, particularly the score of Substance use increased by 87% (1.07 point). In short, amongst the participants in the intervention group, the training effects reduced in magnitude for Stress mindset, and coping strategies, including Religion and Self-distraction. The effects diminished by time in the domains of Problem solving, Social support, Venting, Avoidance, Self-blame, and particularly Substance use. Yet, the effect increased significantly in one domain – Humor. Nevertheless, when compared to baseline, the scores at T2 remained significantly higher for stress mindset and most coping strategies, except for Social support and Avoidance domains.

Table 4 The ten-month effects of TSP on the outcomes in the intervention group
Full size table

Discussions

This study examined the effects of a ten-week program on medical students’ stress mindset and coping strategies in an Asian country; it included a control group and a follow-up period of 6 months. Results showed improvements in stress mindset and all coping strategies immediately after the completion of TSP, and most of these effects were still observable six months later. Further, the effects were not associated with students’ demographic characteristics, their stressors, or engagement in the TSP. The control group received the TSP in the second semester as it was provided as an extra-curricular program to all students, but they were not exposed to TSP when measurements were taken at T1.

The effects of the TSP on stress mindset

Immediately after the completion of TSP, there was a substantive improvement of stress mindset score (by 65%), demonstrating a remarkable shift from “stress-is-debilitating” to “stress-is-enhancing” mindset. This effect diminished over time, with the score decreased by 6% after six months, yet the score was still higher than the baseline score (2.77 at T2, 2.93 at T1, and 1.78 at T0). These findings provide further evidence that mindset can be altered by orienting participants to different understanding of stress [17]. In the current study, the intervention adopted a psychoeducation approach to bring about changes. This approach added a few elements to existing method of in-class lecture and discussion: interactive cellphone texting with instructors, short videos, and cellphone-based stress test to provide feedback to the participants [22, 37, 47]. Despite of these modifications, the interventions followed the same underlying theory as previous studies to provide the participants with the true nature of stress, emphasizing the enhancing nature of stress, and positive effects of having a “stress-is-enhancing” mindset [17, 22]. Studies of stress mindset intervention have largely been conducted in the United States and western countries, with the longest follow-up period of three months after the intervention [17, 23, 48]. Our results showed that alterations in stress mindset could be maintained six months after the intervention, and that the program was effective among medical students.

The effects of the TSP on coping strategies

We found that TSP increased the use of the adaptive coping strategies immediately after the intervention, with simultaneous reduction in the use of maladaptive coping strategies. Most of these effects were substantial with 20–25% changes from baseline. These results were encouraging since training programs of coping strategies for medical students have not been consistently proven effective [12, 49, 50]. For example, a study of 38 Spanish psychology students showed that mindfulness training helped improve problem-based and emotional-based copings, but the effects were only found in students with medium to high level of self-regulation [50]. Mentoring program was also found effective in improving nursing students’ self-confident and seeking social support [51]. A course aimed at improving students’ self-awareness and communication techniques helped them cope better by increase their sense of humor and self-confidence [52]. This study complemented the positive findings of previous ones, as each was based on different theoretical background, intervention approach, and outcomes measurements [50,51,52]. The TSP based on Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, which incorporated mindfulness practice, and stress mindset intervention into training for coping strategies; we demonstrated that this combination of approaches was feasible and effective. We used Brief COPE to measure outcomes because its categories of coping correspond with the TSP training content and best suited for the evaluation.

In Table 2, the significant increase in frequency of Substance use was reported only in the control group, but not in the intervention group. Though students in the intervention group received the TSP training, their scores in Substance use after receiving the training did not significantly decrease. It is likely that during the first year of college life, many students will pick up the habit of smoking and/or drinking. This may explain why we observe a significant increase of Substance use score in the control group. The results showed that the intervention could slow this increase, at least temporarily, perhaps by reducing the detrimental effects of stress, or by directing students to cope with stress by other means. However, after six months following up of the intervention group, the effects reduced in stress mindset and most domains of coping strategies with a marked increase in the score of substance use by 87%. In the field of intervention studies on coping strategies among medical students, we found one study with six years of follow-up period. In addition to a seven-week mindfulness-based course, booster sessions twice a year were provided; participants were able to maintain their practice on problem-focused coping [12]. In the current study, we observed significant increase in the adoption of dysfunctional coping strategies during the follow-up period, probably indicating the importance of continual reinforcement after the TSP. This observation could be also attributed to the surging wave of Covid-19 pandemic around T2, when participants faced lots of unexpected stressors. The wave of Covid-19 pandemic also influenced our data collection process, so while most participants finished the follow-up survey within the designated month, a minority (28 out of 205 students in the intervention group) stretched to the third month.

The relative ineffectiveness of short-term interventions on substance use was consistent with previous studies, demonstrating either small effect size or no effect on the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit drugs [53,54,55,56]. Moreover, the TSP did not focus specifically on substance use or on students with high risk of substance use [57]. It did not address both risk factors and protective factors [58, 59], and it could not take into account family-based factors influencing students’ substance use. Also, most school-based program on substance use required an average duration of three years to be effective [60]. As substance use is a critical issue in medical students and physicians, further effective intervention programs may need to consider the above factors.

The contribution of the current study is that it provides another piece of evidence on the effects of a particular intervention on improving medical students’ stress mindset and coping strategies, independent of many background factors and baseline stress levels. Studies suggested that the change of stress mindset could be internalized and subsequently transform people’s behaviors, including coping strategies [17, 22]. However, because TSP included both intervention on stress mindset and coping strategies, it is impossible to delineate the effect of these components on the improvement of coping skills.

The TSP was offered as an extra-curricular course for all first-year students at the Faculty of Medicine. This goes well with the trend of medical education worldwide to develop curricular changes to address medical student stress and psychological health. Our study has the sample size of 409, much higher than other studies on coping training with sample size ranging from 10 to 57 [15, 16, 43, 50, 61]. The practicability of the intervention was in part dependent on the support from the President of the University, the Dean of the Faculty, and the school staff, demonstrating the importance of commitment from school administration.

Further studies may need to investigate the effects of the TSP on medical students of different years of training. It may also be necessary to examine if the content of the training needs to be adjusted to better fit the needs of different stages in medical training, such as third-year or fifth-year in medical school. The other area that requires continual attention is to extend the follow-up sessions, perhaps on a yearly basis, to reinforce the effects of the TSP on the participants. Finally, the TSP may benefit some students with particular characteristics more than the others; comparisons of the TSP’s effects on different populations of medical students would help the school leaders to prioritize the stress intervention program.

The strengths and weaknesses of this study

The strengths of this study included the following factors. First, the participants in the pilot study provided useful feedbacks in making the TSP fit better with students’ curriculum. Second, the participation rate was high, and all participants completed the surveys. Third, the instruments used were validated for medical students. Lastly, the training effects were examined directly after the training and after a six-month follow-up, which demonstrated the immediate and lasting effects of the training. On the other hand, this study has limitations, including the lack of randomization at individual level and the prolonged time of collecting surveys at T2 due to the Covid-19 outbreak. In addition, we have not measured the status of psychological well-being of the students as indirect outcomes of the intervention, which may be of interest to all medical educators.

Conclusion

Our findings have implications for stress interventions for medical students and identify areas for future investigations. Stress mindset and coping strategies could be modified by a practical intervention to be more positive and adaptive, although it is likely that continual reinforcement may be needed to maintain the TPS effects. This training could be replicated in other universities in Vietnam because of its clear procedures and validated instruments. The TSP adds to the existing literature of stress intervention programs recommended to medical students during their crucial stage of personal and professional development.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the data protection policy of University of Medicine and Pharmacy, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Firth J. Levels and sources of stress in medical students. British medical journal (Clinical research ed). May 3 1986;292(6529):1177-80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.292.6529.1177.

  2. Dahlin M, Joneborg N, Runeson B. Stress and depression among medical students: a cross-sectional study. Med Educ. 2005;39(6):594–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chowdhury R, Mukherjee A, Mitra K, Naskar S, Karmakar PR, Lahiri SK. Perceived psychological stress among undergraduate medical students: role of academic factors. Indian J public health Jan-Mar. 2017;61(1):55–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-557x.200253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Spiegel DA, Smolen RC, Jonas CK. An examination of the relationships among interpersonal stress, morale and academic performance in male and female medical students. Soc Sci Med. 1986;23(11):1157–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(86)90334-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD. Medical student distress: causes, consequences, and proposed solutions. Mayo Clinic proceedings. Dec 2005;80(12):1613-22. doi:https://doi.org/10.4065/80.12.1613.

  6. Yusoff MS, Abdul Rahim AF, Baba AA, Ismail SB, Mat Pa MN, Esa AR. Prevalence and associated factors of stress, anxiety and depression among prospective medical students. Asian J psychiatry Apr. 2013;6(2):128–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2012.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tran Q, Dunne M, Luu H, VIETNAM JOURNAL OF, MEDICINE & PHARMACY WELL-BEING, DEPRESSION AND SUICIDAL IDEATION AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS THROUGHOUT VIETNAM. Vietnam J Med Pharm. 2014;01/01:6:23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Huynh Q, Tanasugarn C, Kengganpanich M, Lapvongwatana P, Quynh Long K, Thai TT. Mental Well-being, and coping strategies during stress for Preclinical Medical students in Vietnam. J Popul Social Stud. 2019;01/25:28:116–29. https://doi.org/10.25133/JPSSv28n2.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pham T, Bui L, Nguyen A, et al. The prevalence of depression and associated risk factors among medical students: an untold story in Vietnam. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Halland E, de Vibe M, Solhaug I, et al. Mindfulness training improves problem-focused coping in psychology and medical students: results from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Coll student J. 2015;09/01:49:387–98.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brennan J, McGrady A, Lynch DJ, Whearty K. Stress Management Intervention for First Year Medical Students. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education. 2010/09/01 2010;16(2):15–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03355126.

  12. de Vibe M, Solhaug I, Rosenvinge JH, Tyssen R, Hanley A, Garland E. Six-year positive effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on mindfulness, coping and well-being in medical and psychology students; results from a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0196053–3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD, Werner L, Sood A, Satele D, Wolanskyj AP. The impact of a required longitudinal stress management and resilience training course for First-Year Medical Students. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;2017/12/01(12):1309–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4171-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yazdani M, Rezaei S, Pahlavanzadeh S. The effectiveness of stress management training program on depression, anxiety and stress of the nursing students. Iran J Nurs midwifery Res Fall. 2010;15(4):208–15.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Häfner A, Stock A, Oberst V. Decreasing students’ stress through time management training: an intervention study. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2015/03/01 2015;30(1):81–94. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0229-2.

  16. Brennan J, McGrady A, Lynch DJ, Schaefer P, Whearty K. A Stress Management Program for Higher Risk Medical Students: Preliminary Findings. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. 2016/09/01 2016;41(3):301–305. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-016-9333-1.

  17. Crum AJ, Salovey P, Achor S. Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets in determining the stress response. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2013;104(4):716–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Crum AJ, Santoro E, Handley-Miner I, et al. Evaluation of the “rethink stress” mindset intervention: a metacognitive approach to changing mindsets. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2023;NoPaginationSpecified–NoPaginationSpecified. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001396.

  19. Keech J, Hagger M, Hamilton K. Changing stress mindsets with a novel imagery intervention: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Emot (Washington DC). 2019. 08/03.

  20. Huebschmann NA, Sheets ES. The right mindset: stress mindset moderates the association between perceived stress and depressive symptoms. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2020/05/03 2020;33(3):248–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1736900.

  21. Chen L, Qu L. From stressful experiences to Depression in chinese migrant children: the roles of stress mindset and coping. Front Psychol. 2021;12:601732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.601732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Crum AJ, Akinola M, Martin A, Fath S. The role of stress mindset in shaping cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to challenging and threatening stress. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2017;30(4):379–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jamieson JP, Crum AJ, Goyer JP, Marotta ME, Akinola M. Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: an integrated model. Anxiety, stress, and coping. May 2018;31(3):245–61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1442615.

  24. Keech JJ, Cole KL, Hagger MS, Hamilton K. The association between stress mindset and physical and psychological wellbeing: testing a stress beliefs model in police officers. Psychol health Nov. 2020;35(11):1306–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1743841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy ER. Is this stress Beneficial? Stress mindset beliefs for specific categories of stressors. American University; 2021.

  26. Masiran R, Ismail SIF, Ibrahim N, et al. Associations between coping styles and psychological stress among medical students at Universiti Putra Malaysia. Curr Psychol. 2021;40(3):1257–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0049-7. /03/01 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zvauya R, Oyebode F, Day EJ, Thomas CP, Jones LA. A comparison of stress levels, coping styles and psychological morbidity between graduate-entry and traditional undergraduate medical students during the first 2 years at a UK medical school. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):93–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2395-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tartas M, Walkiewicz M, Budziński W, Majkowicz M, Wójcikiewicz K, Zdun-Ryżewska A. The coping strategies during medical education predict style of success in medical career: a 10-year longitudinal study. BMC Med Educ 2016/07/22. 2016;16(1):186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0706-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Roslan NS, Yusoff MSB, Ab Razak A, et al. Training characteristics, personal factors and coping strategies Associated with Burnout in Junior doctors: a Multi-Center Study. Healthc (Basel). 2021;9(9):1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9091208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kasi PM, Khawar T, Khan FH, et al. Studying the association between postgraduate trainees’ work hours, stress and the use of maladaptive coping strategies. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad: JAMC Jul-Sep. 2007;19(3):37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shoua-Desmarais N, von Harscher H, Rivera M et al. First Year Burnout and Coping in one US Medical School. Academic psychiatry: the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry. Aug 2020;44(4):394–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-020-01198-w.

  32. Yusoff MSB. Interventions on medical students’ psychological health: A meta-analysis. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2014/03/01/ 2014;9(1):1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2013.09.010.

  33. Shapiro SL, Shapiro DE, Schwartz GE. Stress management in medical education: a review of the literature. Acad medicine: J Association Am Med Colleges Jul. 2000;75(7):748–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200007000-00023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Quynh HHN, Tanasugarn C, Kengganpanich M, Lapvongwatana PJGJoP, Sciences P. The vietnamese holistic mental well-being program in medical school: strategies of social support, express emotion and problem avoidance. Glob J Pharmaceu Sci. 2018;5(2):555656. https://doi.org/10.19080/GJPPS.2018.05.555656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Steinhardt M, Dolbier C. Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. J Am Coll health: J ACH Jan-Feb. 2008;56(4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.56.44.445-454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Warnecke E, Quinn S, Ogden K, Towle N, Nelson MR. A randomised controlled trial of the effects of mindfulness practice on medical student stress levels. Med Educ. 2011;45(4):381–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03877.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Crum A. Evaluating a mindset training program to unleash the enhancing nature of stress. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2011;2011(1):1–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2011.65870502.

  38. Chapman AL. Dialectical behavior therapy: current indications and unique elements. Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa: Township)). Sep 2006;3(9):62 – 8.

  39. Yashika. Types Of Therapy For Stress & Their Benefits. Mantra Care. https://mantracare.org/therapy/stress/therapy-for-stress/.

  40. Nakao M, Shirotsuki K, Sugaya N. Cognitive–behavioral therapy for management of mental health and stress-related disorders: Recent advances in techniques and technologies. BioPsychoSocial Medicine. 2021/10/03 2021;15(1):16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-021-00219-w.

  41. Mann SL, Contrada RJ. 264Cognitive-Behavioral approaches to stress management. In: Nezu CM, Nezu AM, editors. The Oxford Handbook of cognitive and behavioral therapies. Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 0.

  42. Cogwell Anderson R, Jensik K, Peloza D, Walker A. Use of the dialectical behavior therapy skills and management of psychosocial stress with newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Plast Surg nursing: official J Am Soc Plast Reconstr Surg Nurses Oct-Dec. 2013;33(4):159–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/psn.0000000000000018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Malpass A, Binnie K, Robson L. Medical Students’ Experience of Mindfulness Training in the UK: Well-Being, Coping Reserve, and Professional Development. Educ Res Int. 2019;2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4021729.

  44. Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J personality social Psychol Feb. 1989;56(2):267–83. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med. 1997;4(1):92–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Team R, RStudio, RStudio. PBC, Boston, MA 2022.

  47. Wellinger FL. Can a stress mindset be changed?–A Randomized Controlled Trial. University of Twente; 2019.

  48. Fate A. The Effects of Stress Mindset Interventions on University Students’ Health and Functioning. presented at: Undergraduate Honors Papers; 2019; https://scholar.valpo.edu/undergrad_capstones/4.

  49. Kuhlmann SM, Huss M, Bürger A, Hammerle F. Coping with stress in medical students: results of a randomized controlled trial using a mindfulness-based stress prevention training (MediMind) in Germany. BMC Med Educ Dec. 2016;28(1):316. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0833-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Fuente J, Mañas I, Franco C, Cangas AJ, Soriano E. Differential Effect of Level of Self-Regulation and Mindfulness Training on coping strategies used by University students. Int J Environ Res public health Oct. 2018;11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102230.

  51. Yüksel A, Bahadir Yilmaz E. The Effect of Mentoring Program on Adjustment to University and Ways of coping with stress in nursing students: a quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 06https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.006.

  52. Demir S, Ercan F. The effect of a self-awareness and communication techniques course on the communication skills and ways of coping with stress of nursing students: an interventional study in Ankara, Turkey. JPMA The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. May 2019;69(5):659–65.

  53. Shetgiri R, Kataoka S, Lin H, Flores G. A randomized, controlled trial of a school-based intervention to reduce violence and substance use in predominantly latino high school students. J Natl Med Association Sep-Oct. 2011;103(9–10):932–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30450-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Malaguti A, Ciocanel O, Sani F, Dillon JF, Eriksen A, Power K. Effectiveness of the use of implementation intentions on reduction of substance use: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend Sep. 2020;1:214:108120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hodder RK, Freund M, Bowman J, et al. Effectiveness of a pragmatic school-based universal resilience intervention in reducing tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use in a population of adolescents: cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ open Aug. 2017;18(8):e016060. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Grossbard JR, Mastroleo NR, Kilmer JR, et al. Substance use patterns among first-year college students: secondary effects of a combined alcohol intervention. J Subst abuse Treat Dec. 2010;39(4):384–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2010.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shek DT, Yu L. Longitudinal impact of the project PATHS on adolescent risk behavior: what happened after five years? Sci World J. 2012;2012:316029. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/316029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cleveland MJ, Feinberg ME, Bontempo DE, Greenberg MT. The role of risk and protective factors in substance use across adolescence. J Adolesc health: official publication Soc Adolesc Med Aug. 2008;43(2):157–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychol Bull Jul. 1992;112(1):64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Beets MW, Flay BR, Vuchinich S, et al. Use of a social and character development program to prevent substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elementary-school students in Hawaii. Am J public health Aug. 2009;99(8):1438–45. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2008.142919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Noble H, Reid J, Walsh IK, Ellison SE, McVeigh C. Evaluating mindfulness training for medical and PhD nursing students. Br J Nurs (Mark Allen Publishing) Jun. 2019;27(12):798–802. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2019.28.12.798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our thanks to the participants for their participation in the course and their efforts to complete all the surveys. We also would like to send special thanks to all the faculty administrators for their kind support in helping us accomplish this study.

Funding

I declare that the authors received no funding to conduct this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Tan Nguyen, Christy Pu, Alexander Waits & Song-Lih Huang

  2. University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Tuan D. Tran & Quynh Thi Vu Huynh

  3. Medigen Vaccine Biologics, Taipei, Taiwan

    Tuan Hung Ngo

Authors
  1. Tan Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christy Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Waits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tuan D. Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tuan Hung Ngo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Quynh Thi Vu Huynh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Song-Lih Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Tan Nguyen, Alex Waits, and Song-Lih Huang contributed to the conceptual framework. Tan Nguyen, Tuan D Tran, and Quynh Thi Vu Huynh contributed to conducting the intervention and data collection.Tan Nguyen, Christy Pu, Tuan D Tran, Hung Ngo, and Song-Lih Huang contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data.Tan Nguyen and Song-Lih Huang wrote the main manuscript text. Alex Wait, Christy Pu, Hung Ngo, Tuan D Tran, and Quynh Thi Vu Quynh reviewed and revised the manuscript.Song-Lih Huang gave final approval for the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Song-Lih Huang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the IRB of both National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and UMP, and an applicable guidelines for research with human subjects were followed.

The participants submitted written informed consent before participating in the TSP course.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Additional file 1:

Transforming Stress Program’s Components

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nguyen, T., Pu, C., Waits, A. et al. Transforming stress program on medical students’ stress mindset and coping strategies: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Med Educ 23, 587 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04559-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04559-9

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us