logo
ResearchBunny Logo
Nationwide assessment of the mental health of UK Doctoral Researchers

Psychology

Nationwide assessment of the mental health of UK Doctoral Researchers

C. M. Hazell, J. E. Niven, et al.

This study by Cassie M. Hazell and colleagues investigates the pressing issue of mental health among Doctoral Researchers (DRs). It reveals alarming levels of anxiety and depression among DRs compared to educated working controls, challenging the normalization of poor mental health in the PhD journey. The findings urge universities and funders to re-evaluate support for DRs' wellbeing.

00:00
00:00
Playback language: English
Introduction
Doctoral Researchers (DRs), or PhD students, are crucial to the economic and academic success of universities. Their research significantly contributes to the economy, producing a strong return on investment for institutions and industries. While many DRs initially aim for research careers, over 70% transition to other sectors after graduation, a significant factor being the protection of their mental health. The mental health of DRs is a critical issue, with implications for the volume and quality of academic research and broader societal and economic impacts. Previous research, including an international survey by Nature and a meta-analysis, indicates high stress and poor mental health among DRs, potentially leading to them leaving academia. However, these studies lack direct comparisons with control groups to determine if DRs are at higher risk compared to individuals in other professions. One study comparing DRs to undergraduates and employees found higher psychological distress in DRs, but employed a criticized measure (GHQ12) and didn’t assess serious mental illness (SMI) symptoms. This study aims to address these limitations by comparing DRs and a matched control group (educated working professionals, WPs) to determine the prevalence difference in mental health problems, assessing DRs' perceptions of mental health issues, and controlling for pre-existing conditions to ascertain if PhD study is causative of mental health difficulties. The study uses established measures with clinical cut-offs and includes assessments for SMI symptoms like mania and suicidality.
Literature Review
Existing literature highlights the poor mental health of doctoral researchers, but lacks direct comparisons to control groups and often uses unreliable measurement tools. While some studies showed higher stress and psychological distress among doctoral researchers compared to other groups, these studies were limited by the use of the GHQ12, which has been criticized for its response biases, reliability issues, and limited clinical validity. Furthermore, these studies didn't assess symptoms indicative of Serious Mental Illness (SMI), and the issue of causality—whether pre-existing mental health issues draw individuals to PhD programs or whether the PhD itself is the cause—remained unaddressed. This study sought to fill these research gaps.
Methodology
This UK-based study employed a mixed-methods online survey, using a between-group design to compare responses from DRs and a matched group of educated working professionals (WPs). Recruitment involved contacting doctoral schools across the UK and top employers, utilizing social media, Prolific Academic, and Facebook advertisements. The online survey used Qualtrics, employing several measures of mental health problems, psychological functioning, and social functioning. Participants had to meet specific criteria: DRs were currently enrolled in PhD programs in the UK, while WPs were aged 21 or older, held a 2.1 or above undergraduate degree, and worked at least 0.6 FTE in the UK, mirroring the minimum requirement for part-time PhDs. The survey included demographic questionnaires, questions about lifetime mental health issues using adapted CIDI interview questions (anchored to life milestones to improve accuracy), and standardized assessments for depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), mania (ASRMS), and suicidality (SBQ-R). DRs also answered questions about their perceptions of mental health problems' prevalence and impact on PhD studies. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, chi-square tests, and MANCOVA to compare DRs and WPs while controlling for age, gender, disability, ethnicity, and mental health history.
Key Findings
The study included 4608 participants (3352 DRs and 1256 WPs), representing approximately 3.29% of the UK DR population. The majority of DRs believed that mental health problems were ‘the norm’ during a PhD and that most peers experienced them. A significant proportion (35.8%) considered ending or taking a break from their studies due to mental health. DRs showed a significantly higher lifetime prevalence of mental health difficulties than WPs (χ²(1) = 18.39, p < 0.001), but this difference disappeared when considering only professionally diagnosed conditions. There was no significant difference in age of mental health onset between the groups, but DRs tended to report a later onset of problems (during or after undergraduate studies) compared to WPs (χ²(5) = 26.09, p < 0.001). This remained true when considering those with and without a formal diagnosis. Using clinical cut-offs, DRs showed significantly higher prevalence of probable depressive disorders (PHQ-9: χ²(4) = 41.74, p < 0.001) and probable Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7: χ²(3) = 98.47, p < 0.001) than WPs. Conversely, WPs had a higher probability of mania (ASRMS: χ²(1) = 33.61, p < 0.001), while there was no difference in suicidality (SBQ-R: χ²(1) = 1.28, p = 0.26). However, item-level analysis indicated WPs had higher suicide attempts compared to DRs (F(2, 3748) = 5.72, p = 0.02). MANCOVA revealed significantly greater depression and anxiety symptom severity in DRs (p < 0.001 for both). Mania symptoms were higher in WPs, and there was no difference in suicidality (p = 0.53). Despite no overall difference in suicidality, a concerning 35% of both DRs and WPs met the criteria for suicide risk based on general population thresholds, far exceeding the prevalence in general population studies.
Discussion
The study's findings clearly demonstrate that UK-based doctoral researchers experience significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to a matched control group of working professionals, even after controlling for pre-existing conditions. This suggests the PhD process itself contributes significantly to the mental health challenges faced by DRs. The high prevalence of clinically relevant symptoms of depression and anxiety is particularly concerning, as these conditions can impair academic performance and overall wellbeing. The high rates of both depression and anxiety observed in this study raise serious concerns, particularly given their impact on cognitive functioning and the ability to successfully complete a PhD. A comparison with a previous study on Belgian DRs revealed potentially differing prevalence rates, possibly due to different measures or cross-national variances. While the overall suicidality scores showed no significant difference between the groups, the concerning high level of suicide risk in both groups underscores a critical need for improved mental health support and preventative measures. The observation that DRs show a later onset of mental health problems, compared to the working professional control group, is not merely an indication of pre-existing issues, suggesting that the environment and demands of doctoral study contributes significantly to the observed elevated rates of mental health problems.
Conclusion
This study provides strong evidence that UK doctoral researchers experience significantly higher levels of depression and anxiety compared to a control group of working professionals, highlighting a pressing need for improved mental health support within the PhD environment. The unexpectedly high suicide risk in both groups emphasizes the urgency of preventative measures and interventions. Further research should focus on identifying specific factors contributing to this disparity and developing tailored support systems to address the unique mental health challenges faced by doctoral researchers. More granular data collection on suicide rates, disaggregated by student phase of study, is crucial for targeted interventions.
Limitations
This study may have sampling bias as participants with mental health problems might be more inclined to participate. The reliance on self-report measures could introduce inaccuracies, although online questionnaires are suggested to reduce social desirability bias. Finally, the post-hoc analysis of suicidality should be interpreted cautiously due to it not being planned a priori. The relatively high proportion of female and White British participants also limits the generalizability of the results beyond the UK context.
Listen, Learn & Level Up
Over 10,000 hours of research content in 25+ fields, available in 12+ languages.
No more digging through PDFs, just hit play and absorb the world's latest research in your language, on your time.
listen to research audio papers with researchbunny