4.4 Article

Perceived sources and levels of stress, general self-efficacy and coping strategies in clinical dental students

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY HEALTH & MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 1175-1185

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2017.1286359

Keywords

Perceived stress; self-efficacy; coping strategies; undergraduate education; clinical dental students

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aims of this study were to identify sources of stress among clinical students and to evaluate the students' perceived levels of stress, general self-efficacy and effective coping strategies in a private dental school environment. The study group consisted of 130 undergraduate clinical dental students in a Turkish private dental school, during the academic year 2014-2015. The students were surveyed using modified version of the dental environment stress (DES) survey, the perceived stress scale, the general self-efficacy scale (G-SES) and the brief coping scale. Age, sex, year of study, history of psychiatric treatment and factors that affected the choice of dentistry were also recorded. Final year and female clinical dental students, who were found to be the most stressful students, had moderate to high perceived stress scores. Total and Faculty and administration' related DES scores increased with the year of study. Stressors related to Workload' and Clinical training' affected females more than males. G-SES scores were higher in male students and students, who had no history of psychiatric treatment. The most and the least common coping strategies were Planning' and Substance abuse', respectively. Religion' was found to be one of the main coping strategies. Stress factors affecting Turkish clinical dental students studying at private dental school differed from the previously reported stress factors affecting students studying at a governmental dental school. Advanced year and female students experienced more stress than the other students.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available