Yuchen Liu

Introduction: Previous findings have been mixed about the role of demographic characteristics in medical students’ well-being and school experiences when those characteristics were examined in isolation. The aim of this study was to investigate the roles of gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation in medical students’ professional well-being and medical school experiences using an intersectional approach. Method: We analyzed data from the 2019–2022 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire ( N = 66,795). The independent variable was intersectional groups, composed of 16 intersectional groups that combined various genders, races and ethnicities, and sexual orientations. The outcome variables were professional well-being (i.e., burnout, career regret) and medical school experiences (i.e., general mistreatment, discrimination, emotional climate, faculty-student interaction, faculty professionalism, and satisfaction with medical education). Given the large sample, we focused on effect sizes versus statistical significance. Results: The intersectional groups differed from each other on all professional well-being and all medical school experience variables except emotional climate, with at least small effect sizes (ηp ² ≥ .01). Black female sexual minority students reported the most negative outcomes on all variables. The largest differences were primarily with White male heterosexual (e.g., discrimination: d = 1.68, 95% CI [1.53, 1.84]) and White female heterosexual (e.g., disengagement: d = 0.63, 95% CI [0.48, 0.79]) students. However, being a member of a greater number of marginalized groups was not necessarily associated with more negative outcomes, and patterns of group differences varied across domains of professional well-being and medical school experiences. Discussion: Examining the combination of medical students’ gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation yielded larger and more consistent effect sizes than examining each factor individually, suggesting that an intersectional approach can identify the unique challenges confronted by medical students from specific demographic groups.

Little is known about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students. We examined medical students’ burnout, career regret, and medical school experiences from before to during the pandemic, and differences between students from marginalized and nonmarginalized groups. We analyzed data from 2019 to 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges Year Two Questionnaires (N = 52,152) and Graduation Questionnaires (N = 66,795). Given large samples, we focused on effect sizes versus statistical significance. All effects of study year were less than small (η² < .01) indicating minimal differences in medical students’ burnout, career regret, and school experiences from before (2019) to during (2020–2022) the pandemic. Interactions between study year and demographic characteristics (gender, race-ethnicity, sexual orientation) were less than small; thus, students from marginalized groups were not affected more by the pandemic than others. Across study years, women reported more exhaustion and discrimination than men. Black students reported more discrimination than students from other racial-ethnic groups; bisexual students reported more discrimination than heterosexual students (all ds > 0.20). Differences between students from marginalized and nonmarginalized groups were bigger than the effects of the pandemic, suggesting a need for system-level interventions to foster inclusion in medical education.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of brief, self-guided web-based interventions for decreasing distress among U.S. college students during the pandemic. Three randomized controlled trials were conducted during the spring (Study 1), summer (Study 2), and fall (Study 3) 2020 terms, and were combined into one sample to increase power (N = 775). We evaluated a web-based intervention that focused on increasing present control that had been shown to be effective in several studies prior to the pandemic (e.g., Nguyen-Feng et al., 2017). This intervention was compared to an active comparison condition (psychoeducation about and reminders to engage in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended stress management techniques) in Study 1, to a waitlist comparison in Study 2, and to both comparison conditions in Study 3. Participants were undergraduate psychology students at two campuses of a midwestern state university system. Outcomes-perceived stress (primary); depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms (secondary); and boredom (tertiary)-were assessed at pretest and posttest (and 3-week follow-up in Study 3). Differences across conditions were significant for perceived stress, stress symptoms, and boredom (but not depression or anxiety). Contrary to hypotheses, the Present Control and CDC stress management interventions were equally effective. Both were more effective than no intervention (between-group ds = -0.27 and -0.42). Both interventions were more effective for students with higher baseline stress levels. Completion and adherence rates were high for both conditions. Results suggest that very brief, self-guided stress management interventions can be effective in reducing stress among college students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).