Scholarlink

Background <p>Health professions students may encounter a range of stressors during their clinical education that may impact their quality of life. This study aimed to explore how various health professions students perceive their quality of life and the environment in which they develop their clinical skills.</p> Methods <p>An online survey was administered among registered undergraduate students in the physiotherapy, speech-language pathology, nursing, or medical programs. Quality of life was assessed using the Brunnsviken Brief Quality of Life Scale (BBQ) and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire, which comprises Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) Scores. The results were compared to the outcomes of the Undergraduate Clinical Education and Environment Measure (UCEEM), which assesses students’ perceptions of the clinical learning environment.</p> Results <p>In total, 280 students (median age 26 years, range 20–52; 72% females) responded. The mean total BBQ score for all students was 54.0 (SD 17.2), with no significant differences across the four programs. The mean MCS and PCS scores for all participants were 39.5 (SD 12.0) and 51.8 (SD 7.5), respectively, with significantly higher PCS scores among medical students than nursing students (<i>p</i> = 0.04). While the BBQ total score was weakly predicted by the UCEEM total score in the entire sample (ß = 0.19, 95% CI [0.06, 0.29], <i>p</i> = 0.002, <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.03), this prediction was substantially stronger in the speech-language pathology program (ß = 0.48, 95% CI [0.15, 0.87], <i>p</i> = 0.007, <i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.23). Further, the UCEEM total score did not predict either the PCS or MCS scores in the entire study cohort.</p> Conclusions <p>Our results do not support earlier findings that medical students have a much lower quality of life than other health professions students, although our medical students did rate their clinical learning environment lower than than the students in other programs. Nevertheless, our study raises concerns about the mental components of student’s quality of life. Therefore, educational institutions should seek support, both to students and supervisors in the clinical learning environment, so that possible problematic areas affecting students’ well-being and learning may be identified and addressed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Perceptions of quality of life and the clinical learning environment: a cross-sectional study of four cohorts of health professions students

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月10日

查看全文
  • Per Östberg,
  • Malin Sellberg,
  • Per J. Palmgren,
  • Riitta Möller

摘要

Background

Health professions students may encounter a range of stressors during their clinical education that may impact their quality of life. This study aimed to explore how various health professions students perceive their quality of life and the environment in which they develop their clinical skills.

Methods

An online survey was administered among registered undergraduate students in the physiotherapy, speech-language pathology, nursing, or medical programs. Quality of life was assessed using the Brunnsviken Brief Quality of Life Scale (BBQ) and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire, which comprises Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) Scores. The results were compared to the outcomes of the Undergraduate Clinical Education and Environment Measure (UCEEM), which assesses students’ perceptions of the clinical learning environment.

Results

In total, 280 students (median age 26 years, range 20–52; 72% females) responded. The mean total BBQ score for all students was 54.0 (SD 17.2), with no significant differences across the four programs. The mean MCS and PCS scores for all participants were 39.5 (SD 12.0) and 51.8 (SD 7.5), respectively, with significantly higher PCS scores among medical students than nursing students (p = 0.04). While the BBQ total score was weakly predicted by the UCEEM total score in the entire sample (ß = 0.19, 95% CI [0.06, 0.29], p = 0.002, r2 = 0.03), this prediction was substantially stronger in the speech-language pathology program (ß = 0.48, 95% CI [0.15, 0.87], p = 0.007, r2 = 0.23). Further, the UCEEM total score did not predict either the PCS or MCS scores in the entire study cohort.

Conclusions

Our results do not support earlier findings that medical students have a much lower quality of life than other health professions students, although our medical students did rate their clinical learning environment lower than than the students in other programs. Nevertheless, our study raises concerns about the mental components of student’s quality of life. Therefore, educational institutions should seek support, both to students and supervisors in the clinical learning environment, so that possible problematic areas affecting students’ well-being and learning may be identified and addressed.