| Data collection method: |
Materials and Methods Ethics The study obtained ethics approval from the University of Glasgow (application number 300180043). Participants received information about the purpose of the study and what their participation will involve and gave informed consent prior to taking part. At the end of the survey, relevant academic literature on PGR wellbeing was signposted, as well as the sources of free psychological help and support. Participants A total of 479 PGRs (Table 1) from 47 universities in the UK completed the survey. There were 415 PGRs from Scottish universities (86.6%), 55 from universities in England (11.5%), 6 from Welsh universities (1.3%) and 2 from universities in Northern Ireland (0.4%). One participant was studying at the Open University (0.2%) at an unspecified location. Participant age ranged from 21 to 73, with mean age of 31.1 (Median=28; SD=9.1) years. [Table 1 near here] Procedure Data was were collected between December 2018 and July 2019 via Jisc Online surveys platform (onlinesurveys.ac.uk). Participants were asked to take part in a short PGR wellbeing survey. Email invitations were sent to PGRs at one large research-focused university (16% response rate), while other participants were recruited via social media and personal contacts. It was estimated that the survey took about 30 minutes to complete. Measures Individual factors Demographics Participants were asked to provide information on their age, gender, sexual orientation., field of study (college/school of registration), year of study, institution, and the extent of funding available (Table 1). Mental health outcomes Anxiety Severity of anxiety in the past two weeks was assessed using The Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006). The scale had excellent internal consistency in the current sample, α =0.91. Depression Severity of depression symptoms in the past two weeks was measured with the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001; Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002). The scale had excellent internal consistency, α = 0.90. Sleep/Insomnia symptoms Sleep Condition Indicator ( SCI; Espie et al., 2014) is an 8-item scale that evaluates insomnia disorder considering both sleep quality and daytime functioning. Internal consistency was good, α = 0.88. Mental wellbeing Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009) consists of seven positively phrased items that evaluate mental wellbeing on a 5-point Likert-response format from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). The scale contains 5 items that measure eudaimonic factors (psychological functioning and self-realisation) and 2 that refer to hedonic factors, i.e. positive affect. α =0.86. Suicide behaviours and self-harm Suicide Behaviours Questionnaire – Revised (SBQ-R; Osman et al., 2001) is a brief four-item measure that taps into suicidal thoughts and past attempts. Internal consistency was good, α =.84. Single question from the PHQ-9 scale enquiring about thoughts of suicide and self-harming in the past two weeks was used to assess the prevalence of such thoughts. TraitsIndividual factors Resilience Brief Resilience Scale ( BRS; Smith et al., 2008) is a six-item measure that assesses the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores related to higher resilience. The scale had good internal consistency, α =89. Workaholism Seven questions thought to be particularly relevant to the PGR population were derived from the 25-item Work Addiction Risk Test (WART; Flowers & Robinson, 2002; Robinson, 1999) to tap into the five dimensions of the scale: Compulsive Tendencies, Control, Impaired Communication, Inability to Delegate, and Self-Worth (Appendix A). Scores range from 7 to 28, with higher scores indicating more severe workaholism. The scale had questionable internal consistency, α =.66. Perfectionism Perfectionism was assessed using the 8-item Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS; Rice et al., 2014), capturing two major dimensions of perfectionism: Standards (high performance expectations or adaptive perfectionism) and Discrepancy (self-critical performance evaluations or maladaptive perfectionism). Within the range of 8-56, higher scores correspond to more pronounced perfectionism. Internal consistency was excellent, α =.90 for Standards, and α =.91 for Discrepancy. Academic progress Year of study Participants were asked to specify which the year of study they were currently in, regardless of the full-time/part-time status. Satisfaction with Aacademic progress and preparation Five questions were adopted from the Berkley Graduate Student Happiness and Well-Being survey (UC Berkeley Graduate Assembly, 2014) to enquire about timely progression, sense of preparedness for the challenges involved, view of the future, engagement, and availability of material resources. Score range was 5-35, with higher scores indicating more positive evaluation. The scale had acceptable internal consistency, α =.79. Interpersonal factors Supervisory relationship Supervisory relationship was defined as a complex construct, comprised of the perceived expertise, quality of guidance, feedback and mentorship, as well as rapport and interpersonal support. (e.g. Ali et al., 2016; McAlpine et al., 2012). Two items were adapted from the Berkeley survey (UC Berkeley Graduate Assembly, 2014) and eight novel items were added to gauge PGR evaluation of supervisory relationship (Appendix C). Score range was 10-70, with higher scores indicated more positive evaluations. Internal consistency was excellent, α =.92 Social support Three items from the 12-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Merz et al., 2014) were used to assess tangible support, appraisal support and belonging (Appendix D). Score range was 0-9, with higher scores indicating higher perceived social support. The scale had poor internal consistency, α =.57. Institutional/cultural factors Field of study This was captured through the question about college/school of registration, with 5 options: ‘Social Sciences’, ‘Science and Engineering’, ‘Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences’, ‘Arts’, and ‘Other’. Departmental climate One question was adapted from The Graduate Student Happiness and Well-Being Report (UC Berkeley Graduate Assembly, 2014) and three novel items were added to assess the perceptions of departmental climate in terms of inclusion, discrimination, bullying and mental health support (Appendix E). Score range was 4-28, while higher scores denoted more positive perceptions. Internal consistency was acceptable, α =.79. Policy Funding Participants specified whether their funding was ‘full’, ‘partial’, or they were ‘self-funded’. Mental health outcomes Anxiety Severity of anxiety in the past two weeks was assessed using The Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006). Total score range is from 0 to 21, while scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent cut off points for mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively . The scale had excellent internal consistency in the current sample, α =0.91. Depression Severity of depression symptoms in the past two weeks was measured withusing the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001; Kroenke & Spitzer, 2002). Scores range from 0 to 27, while scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 are cut off points for mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, respectively. The scale had excellent internal consistency, α = 0.90. Sleep/Insomnia symptoms Sleep Condition Indicator ( SCI; Espie et al., 2014) is an 8-item scale that evaluates insomnia disorder considering both sleep quality and daytime functioning. Scores range from 0 to 32, with lower scores of 16 and below indicating poor sleep/insomnia. Internal consistency was good, α = 0.88. Mental wellbeing Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009) consists of seven positively phrased items that evaluate mental wellbeing on a 5-point Likert-response format from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). The scale contains 5 items that measure eudaimonic factors (psychological functioning and self-realisation) and 2 that refer to hedonic factors, i.e. positive affect. Score range is 7-35, with higher scores corresponding to higher wellbeing. Low, medium and high categories of wellbeing were created based on scores that are at least one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively (Fat et al., 2017). Internal consistency in the current sample was good, α =0.86. Suicide behaviours and self-harm Suicide Behaviours Questionnaire – Revised (SBQ-R; Osman et al., 2001) is a brief four-item measure that taps into suicidal thoughts and past attempts. Scores range from 3 to 18, where scores of 7 and above indicate an elevated risk of suicide. Internal consistency was good, α =.84. A sSingle question from the PHQ-9 scale enquiring about thoughts of suicide and self-harming in the past two weeks was used to assess the prevalence of such thoughts. |
