# Analysis of Medical Students’ Motivation: Insights into the Development of Future Health Professionals

## TL;DR

Medical students' motivation changes over time, influenced by curriculum, mental health, and gender, with intrinsic factors like curiosity and achievement being key drivers.

## Contribution

This study identifies intrinsic motivation drivers and contextual factors affecting medical students' motivation using a mixed-methods approach.

## Key findings

- Motivation peaks in preclinical years and rebounds in year 6, influenced by curriculum reforms and active learning.
- Intrinsic achievement and curiosity are central motivators, while mistreatment and workload act as demotivators.
- Women show higher motivation and grades but also higher stress, highlighting the need for gender-sensitive support.

## Abstract

Medical students experience fluctuations in their motivation, influenced by various factors, including curricular rigor, mental health, and institutional factors. Based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Four Pillars of Academic Engagement (HPEE), this study, conducted at a private Mexican university, examined motivational variation according to academic year, curricular impact, gender differences, and its relationship with mental health. Methods: A quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted using qualitative tools for contextualization (n = 1326). Mann–Whitney U tests, Kruskal–Wallis tests, logistic regression, and psychological network analysis were performed. Results: Motivation showed cross-sectional variation: high in preclinical years 1 and 2, decreasing in clinical years 3 and 4 (p < 0.001), and rebounding in year 6. The reformed curriculum (elective subjects, student-centered active learning) resulted in greater motivation (OR = 10.68, p < 0.001). Women tended to have slightly higher motivation (p = 0.050), higher grade point averages (p < 0.001), but also greater stress (p < 0.001). Network analysis revealed that intrinsic achievement (centrality = 1.11) and curiosity about knowledge (predictability = 84.5%) are the main drivers, while demotivation was linked to the later years. The qualitative part of the study showed altruism/curiosity as the main motivators; mistreatment/workload (demotivators). Conclusions: Motivation is context-sensitive, peaks in the preclinical stage, and recovers with autonomy but is vulnerable during clinical immersion. Autonomy in course selection, active student-centered pedagogies, and gender-sensitive support foster sustained participation. The centrality of intrinsic factors in the network highlights that achievement motivation and knowledge are general and independent motivators. Qualitative data reveal systemic barriers. Stage-specific interventions, such as mentoring, student support programs, and reporting mistreatment, can be crucial for strengthening resilience and performance. Longitudinal and multi-institutional studies are needed to validate the causality and generalizability of this study.