A framework for doctoral education in developing students’ mental well-being by integrating the demand and resources of the program: An integrative review

TL;DR

This paper reviews how doctoral programs can improve students' mental well-being by understanding program demands and available resources.

Contribution

It introduces an integrated conceptual model linking program demands and resources to doctoral students' mental well-being.

Findings

Differentiated demands include ambiguity, resource inadequacy, workload, complexity, and responsibility.

Institutional and supervisory support, along with intrinsic motivation, are key resources for mitigating these demands.

A conceptual model is proposed to guide universities in designing supportive doctoral programs.

Abstract

Background:Research on doctoral students’ mental well-being has gained significant importance in recent years. The findings of such studies were uncertain about the critical demands and resources of a doctoral program that substantially influence the students’ mental health. This review aims to integrate the current evidence in bringing out the nature and significance of differentiated demands, contextual and personal resources, and their influence on the well-being of the students.

Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted based on the five-stage framework of Whittemore and Knafl. The study identified 45 articles published from 2000 onwards following the Joanna Briggs Institute quality evaluation criteria and PRISMA reporting guidelines for selecting eligible articles.

Results: The integrative review findings divulge that differentiated demands of doctoral programs were categorized into challenge-hindrance demands. The differentiated demands experienced by doctoral students were grouped as ambiguity in doctoral program structure, resource inadequacy, workload, complexity, and responsibility. Additionally, institutional support, research supervisory support, and intrinsic motivation were treated as essential resource in mitigating the effects of the differentiated demands of the doctoral program.

Conclusions: An integrated conceptual model was built exclusively for doctoral programs and suggests that the universities and supervisors design and structure healthy, constructive doctoral programs. As an outcome of the review, theoretical underpinnings of demands-resources and mental well-being are reported. The current review is an initial attempt to synthesize challenge-hindrance demands and contextual-personal resources in determining the mental well-being of doctoral students.

Figures