Building a taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors in stricto sensu graduate studies^*

Abstract

This study aimed to construct a taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors related to graduate studies (stricto sensu) from the perspective of master’s and doctoral students. It was a qualitative study conducted with master’s and doctoral students from a Brazilian public university. Data collection took place from October to December 2023 using a questionnaire for characterization and guided focus groups, with data interpretation through thematic analysis. Seventy-two graduate students participated. The taxonomy constructed encompassed psychosocial risk factors in both the context and content of the studies. Regarding context, the following factors were considered: institutional function, environment, decision-making and control, career development, interpersonal relationships, and interface between study and personal life. Regarding content, the following psychosocial risk factors were considered: resources, workload, pace and study schedules, and specific aspects of research. Thus, Higher Education Institutions should implement support initiatives and health promotion policies based on the identification and understanding of psychosocial risk factors.

Keywords
Postgraduate education; Students; Postgraduate health programs; Universities; Mental health

Resumo

Este estudo objetivou construir uma taxonomia de fatores de risco psicossociais relacionados à pós-graduação stricto sensu na perspectiva de mestrandos e doutorandos. Tratou-se de estudo qualitativo realizado com estudantes de mestrado e doutorado de uma universidade pública brasileira. A coleta ocorreu de outubro a dezembro de 2023, utilizando questionário para caracterização e grupos focais guiados por roteiro, com interpretação dos dados através da análise temática. Participaram 72 pós-graduandos. A taxonomia construída abrangeu fatores de risco no contexto e no conteúdo dos estudos. No que se refere ao contexto, foram considerados os seguintes fatores de risco psicossociais: função institucional, ambiência, decisão e controle, desenvolvimento de carreira, relacionamento interpessoal, e interface entre estudo e vida pessoal. No que se refere ao conteúdo, foram considerados os seguintes fatores de risco psicossociais: recursos, carga, ritmo e esquemas de estudo, e aspectos específicos da pesquisa. Assim, as Instituições de Ensino Superior devem implementar iniciativas de suporte e políticas de promoção de saúde baseadas na identificação e compreensão dos fatores de risco psicossociais.

Palavras-chave
Educação de pós-graduação; Estudantes; Programas de pós-graduação em saúde; Universidades; Saúde mental

Resumen

Este estudio tuvo como objetivo construir una taxonomía de los factores de riesgo psicosocial relacionados con los estudios de posgrado (stricto sensu) desde la perspectiva de estudiantes de maestría y doctorado. Fue un estudio cualitativo realizado con estudiantes de maestría y doctorado de una universidad pública brasileña. La recolección de datos tuvo lugar de octubre a diciembre de 2023, utilizando un cuestionario para la caracterización y grupos focales guiados, con interpretación de datos a través del análisis temático. Participaron setenta y dos estudiantes de posgrado. La taxonomía construida abarcó factores de riesgo tanto en el contexto como en el contenido de los estudios. En cuanto al contexto, se consideraron los siguientes factores de riesgo psicosocial: función institucional, entorno, toma de decisiones y control, desarrollo profesional, relaciones interpersonales y la interacción entre el estudio y la vida personal. En cuanto al contenido, se consideraron los siguientes factores de riesgo psicosocial: recursos, carga de trabajo, ritmo y horarios de estudio, y aspectos específicos de la investigación. Por lo tanto, las Instituciones de Educación Superior deben implementar iniciativas de apoyo y políticas de promoción de la salud basadas en la identificación y comprensión de los factores de riesgo psicosocial.

Palabras clave
Educación de postgrado; Estudiantes; Programas de posgrado en salud; Universidades; Salud mental

Introduction

Stricto sensu graduate programs are scientifically and socially relevant worldwide, as they train future teachers and researchers, stimulate knowledge production, and contribute to the expansion of higher education¹. In recent decades, driven by demand and generally supported by government policies, there has been a progressive increase in the number of professionals entering master’s and doctoral programs, including in the health field². However, this entry may be accompanied by transformations, expectations regarding performance, and challenges in adapting to academic life³.

In this scenario, the literature has underscored the mental health crisis in the academic community, especially among students in the early stages of their careers^4-5. In addition, after entering graduate school, students face various demands, such as defining a topic, conducting research, analyzing data, and writing scientific articles². These responsibilities can add to financial and personal difficulties, as well as the need to balance study and full-time paid work^6-7 – a frequent reality in Brazilian graduate programs. Thus, it is important to investigate in detail the risk factors⁸, with an emphasis on the psychosocial factors to which these students are exposed.

Psychosocial risks are conditions resulting from deficiencies in work organization and management, as well as problematic work contexts or content, capable of generating adverse psychological, physical, and social effects^9-12. The situations that favor the emergence of these risks constitute psychosocial risk factors, which are multidimensional, linked to the context and content of activities, directly influencing the well-being of the individual. Although traditionally applied and studied in the labor segment^9-12, these factors also manifest themselves in different areas, such as living conditions, health, and education¹³, as well as in academia¹⁴.

In graduate studies, potential psychosocial risk factors include pressure for productivity, restricted autonomy, scarcity of resources, limitations of institutional support, and interpersonal relationship difficulties¹⁴. However, despite the existence of studies that mention these elements^2-5,14, including those inserted individually, in groups, and/or institutionally¹⁴, an organized and comprehensive taxonomy that systematizes them in the context of graduate studies stricto sensu has not yet been found.

Systematization is essential, since it enables the classification and understanding, in a structured manner, of the various psychosocial risk factors faced by master’s and doctoral students, contributing to more accurate diagnoses and more targeted interventions. This involves identifying, categorizing, and describing the psychosocial risk factors that these students may face during their academic career.

Taxonomy, understood as a way of systematically organizing and classifying elements related to a specific theme¹⁵, can provide support for the development of institutional strategies for disease prevention, intervention, and health promotion. In this sense, by proposing the construction of a taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors related to graduate studies, this study seeks to fill a scientific and practical gap, with a view to providing this resource so that educational institutions and training programs can implement support measures, policies, and actions that favor a healthier academic culture¹⁶. Therefore, this study presents the following research question: what are the psychosocial risk factors from the perspective of graduate students?

Given the complexity of this scenario, it is important to analyze psychosocial risk factors, both for diagnosis and intervention, avoiding superficial or temporary solutions¹⁴, especially since this is a population that has been neglected in research and interventions to improve education.

Therefore, this study aims to construct a taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors related to stricto sensu graduate studies from the perspective of master’s and doctoral students.

Methodology

Qualitative, exploratory study, presented in accordance with the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research-32¹⁷ verification guide. It was developed in five graduate programs in health at a Brazilian public Higher Education Institution (HEI) in a city of the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

Data collection was carried out from October to December 2023 with stricto sensu graduate students (master’s and doctoral) enrolled in the five programs of the selected HEI, who were engaged in paid professional activities concurrently with the course.

Data were collected using a sociodemographic, academic, and professional questionnaire, followed by focus groups (FGs) with a script of guiding questions. FGs are a qualitative research technique that brings together groups of participants to discuss a specific topic, to explore perceptions, experiences, and meanings¹⁸. We chose to conduct the FGs both in person and remotely, due to the flexibility of schedules.

For the selection of participants, intentional non-probabilistic techniques (judgment)¹⁹ were used, in addition to the snowball technique, a non-probabilistic method in which the initial participants indicate new participants, forming a progressive chain of recruitment²⁰, in which graduate students and faculty members indicated new participants. Invitations were made in person and through institutional dissemination, via email, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

The FGs were conducted by a moderator, the main author of this study, and an observer, the second author. The researcher, who is also the moderator of the FGs, has a bachelor’s degree in nursing, a master’s degree, and, at the time of data collection, was a doctoral student. The group observer, also a nursing graduate, is a higher education professor with a master’s and doctoral degree. Both have experience and training in the FG technique, are affiliated with the same HEI, and have no conflicts of interest.

The face-to-face groups took place in a reserved room at the proposing HEI. For remote meetings, Google Meet^® was used, and the moderator conducted the session in a reserved physical space to avoid interruptions. In both formats, only the participants and researchers were present.

The date and time of the groups were set based on the availability of the students who agreed to participate. A relationship was established with the FG participants through the introduction of the moderator and observer, their qualifications, personal goals, and reasons and interests for the study.

The information was audio-recorded, and each group lasted an average of 60 minutes. The guiding questions were: what is it like to do a stricto sensu postgraduate course? What conditions are offered? Are there any difficulties? The questions were developed based on the literature^2,4,5,14,21 and the researchers’ experience with the topic. It was decided to dispense with prior testing of the script, moving directly to the data collection phase. A field diary was also used²² to record the perceptions of the moderator and observer during the groups.

The number of participants and FGs was determined upon reaching theoretical sufficiency, ending data collection after achieving the study objectives²³. There was no repetition of FGs with the same participants. The audio recordings of the FGs allowed us to extract statements that were transcribed and returned to the participants, without additions or reductions to the data obtained. The information was interpreted through thematic analysis, both deductive²⁴ and inductive, anchored in the theoretical framework^9-12. Although it is a framework that encompasses psychosocial factors and risks at work^9-12, it was chosen because it provides an adequate basis for presenting psychosocial risk factors and adapting them to the context and content of this research (stricto sensu graduate studies), due to the absence of another model that covers graduate studies. This process is described in Frame 1:

Frame 1
Data analysis.

Stage I	Familiarization – reading and rereading the data, with initial notes;
Stage II	Initial coding – identification of deductive and inductive codes;
Stage III	Search by topic – grouping codes into potential topics;
Stage IV	Review – verification and refinement of themes in light of the data;
Stage V	Definition and naming – precise delimitation and naming of topics;
Stage VI	Final report – consolidated analysis and collective review by researchers of the thematic structure.

• Source: adapted from Braun and Clarke²⁴.

The analytical process was conducted manually. The transcribed statements were read to identify core meanings and open coding, in which excerpts were highlighted and labeled with codes representing their central content. Axial coding was performed, grouping related codes into broader categories, both deductive, based on the theoretical framework used, and inductive, emerging from the empirical material. The categories synthesized the main axes related to the stricto sensu graduate experience, while the subcategories brought specificities illustrated by excerpts from the participants. This process culminated in the construction of a taxonomy appropriate to the context of graduate studies in health/nursing that integrates the psychosocial risk factors of graduate students.

Considering the position of the moderator and observer in relation to the field investigated, a critical reflection was made on the possible influences of this proximity on the interpretation of the data. As they were linked to the same institution, they recognized the importance of maintaining a reflective and ethical stance in order to reduce bias and promote analytical transparency. The use of field diaries, the return of transcripts to participants, and the joint review of findings by all study authors were strategies that strengthened the study’s credibility. We sought to ensure that the construction of categories and subcategories, which culminated in the development of the taxonomy¹⁵, reflected the experiences shared and validated by the participants.

Ethical aspects

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the proposing institution, under Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Review No. 74404423.0.0000.5393 and Opinion No. 6.424.493.

To preserve the anonymity of the participants, the statements were coded. The final citation consisted of the FG number, the participant’s current course (stricto sensu), and professional category. Thus, the FGs were coded from 1 to 13 (FG1-FG13), using the modalities of doctorate (D), direct doctorate (DD), master’s degree (M), and professional master’s degree (PM) of the stricto sensu course, in addition to the following professions: dental surgeon (Dent-Surg); physical education professional (Phy-EP); nurse (Nur); physical therapist (Phy-Ther); nutritionist (Nutri); psychologist (Psycho); occupational therapist (Occup-Ther).

Results

Of the 501 graduate students invited at the time of data collection, 72 agreed to participate in the study. Five graduate students declined (one in person and four remotely), citing unavailability, and 68 did not respond to invitations made directly, remotely, by the researcher, the first author.

Regarding the profile of the participants, there was a predominance of females (n=55; 76%) and graduates in nursing (n=60; 83.3%), followed by psychology graduates (n=5; 6.9%), dentistry graduates (n=2; 3.2%), and physical education, physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy graduates (n=1; 1.6% each). Among the postgraduate courses, (n=39) 54.2% of participants were in doctoral programs, and (n=33) 45.8% were in master’s programs, specifically academic doctorates (n=31; 43%), academic master’s degrees (n=21; 29.2%), professional master’s degrees (n=12; 16.7%), and direct academic doctorate (without a master’s degree) (n=8; 11.1%). The predominant age group (n=32; 44.4%) was 30 to 39 years old. Most work in healthcare (n=41; 56.9%), while (n=26) 36% work in healthcare management, and (n=21) 29.2% work in teaching.

The participants were divided into 13 FGs, 12 of which were conducted remotely and one in person. The predominance of remote groups was due to the students’ preference for flexibility in terms of time and location. The in-person FG corresponded to FG2, and the others were remote.

The in-person group consisted of five participants. Remotely, five groups consisted of five people, and seven groups consisted of six people. Based on the information and data analysis, categories and subcategories were formed for taxonomic construction, covering psychosocial risk factors related to the context and content of the studies.

Study context

In the context of the study, the psychosocial risk factors in graduate school were institutional function, environment, decision-making and control, career development, interpersonal relationships, and the interface between study and personal life:

Category 1: institutional function [subtítulo]

Institutional function can be a psychosocial risk factor due to the guidelines that must be followed, especially due to requirements and deadlines:

Subcategory 1: requirements and deadlines

There are a lot of tasks to be completed in a short time: courses, credits, production, and qualification. (FG7-D-Nur)

Dealing with deadlines causes a lot of anxiety. It’s stressful. (FG7-M-Psycho)

Category 2: environment

This category will emphasize psychosocial risk factors such as environment (distance from the institution) and the covid-19 pandemic crisis:

Subcategory 1: distance from the institution

A highway that always has accidents. There is a lot of traffic. We have the stress of driving. It is something that is tiring. (FG5-D-Occup-Ther)

Sometimes, I am unable to participate in some things that the university offers; in fact, I never have, because I am in another municipality. (FG1-D-Nur)

Subcategory 2: pandemic crisis

I extended my master’s degree during the pandemic because the purpose of my research became unfeasible and I had to change everything. (FG5-M-Nur)

Due to remote learning, I was so tired that sometimes I slept during some classes. (FG9-D-Nur)

Category 2: decision and control

The psychosocial risk factor of decision and control encompasses limited participation in decision-making and lack of control over tasks, covering factors such as academic stages and compromised dedication:

Subcategory 1: academic stages

What makes me suffer is the wait; sending a project. It stays there for two months in the hands of the advisor and the research ethics committee as well. (FG11-D-Nur)

Data collection is exhausting. It’s a phase where you work hard and don’t get much in return... it’s a little frustrating. (FG10-DD-Nur)

Subcategory 2: committed dedication

I regret not being able to have more time to produce more because of all these demands. The schedules often don’t match. (FG7-M-Psycho)

Being more involved with graduate school is the difficulty I see in working and doing graduate school. (FG7-DD-Phy-EP)

Category 3: career development

There are psychosocial risk factors related to career development, such as limited financial resources, an uncertain professional future, and financial and social devaluation:

Subcategory 1: limited financial resources

If only I had a scholarship that covered it... a person who has a family can’t depend solely on that. (FG7-M-Psycho)

During my doctorate, one thing I did was pay into the INSS (National Social Security Institute). I even took that out of my scholarship. There is no thirteenth month salary, no vacation, no INSS contributions, no social security. (FG1-DD-Nur)

Subcategory 2: uncertain professional future [sub-subtítulo]

It’s a thankless field... I tried several private colleges, and they disqualified me because of my resume. (FG4-D-Psycho)

I feel very worried about the future. Having a doctorate is no guarantee of employment. I’m even feeling sick; I need to have a job, stability. (FG1-D-Nur)

Subcategory 3: social devaluation [sub-subtítulo]

The university where I work pays the same for master’s and doctorate degrees; there is no difference. (FG4-D-Nutri)

This lack of understanding and social recognition is demotivating... they think that a doctor is a medical doctor. (FG9-M-Nur)

Category 3: interpersonal relationships

Relationships in stricto sensu graduate programs can be significant psychosocial risk factors with colleagues and/or advisors:

Subcategory 1: colleagues

This relationship between those involved, colleagues, of individualism, egocentrism, not seeking to help others and seeking to favor only oneself. (FG1-D-Nur)

Compared to my colleagues who have never worked, the level of quality they have to dedicate themselves to the program is different. (FG4-D-Psycho)

Subcategory 2: advisor

I had a lot of difficulty with my advisor. I was left to my own devices. I walked practically alone... days without an answer. When she talks to us, she is in a hurry to speak. (FG4-D-Nur)

I had to change advisors. I was unable to have a good relationship with my first advisor. There was no interaction. (FG3-M-Nur)

Category 4: interface between study and personal life

Another risk factor is the tension between academic demands and personal life:

Subcategory 1: academic and personal life

I decided I wanted to be a mother. I was already 39, 40 years old... I had to seek treatment and had two miscarriages along the way. (FG1-D-Nur)

It’s your personal life, it’s home, it’s your husband, your young child. For women, especially... the responsibilities. (FG9-DD-Nur)

Study content

In the postgraduate content, there are psychosocial risk factors such as academic resources, study load and pace, study schedule, and research:

Category 1: resources

The lack of academic resources is a psychosocial risk factor that affects the course of training:

Subcategory 1: academic resources

I had to purchase software on my own. (FG7-M-Psycho)

I had difficulty accessing psychological therapy; there were no openings, it was always like that. The summary: I couldn’t do it and had a crisis. (FG9-D-Nur)

Category 2: study load and pace

This category addresses the psychosocial risk factor related to study load and pace, i.e., excessive demands in graduate school and intrinsic pressures:

Subcategory 1: overloads and self-imposed pressures

When I decide to rest, my mind keeps thinking about the activity I should be doing at that moment. (FG10-M-Nur)

I am very much a perfectionist. I try to do my best before sending it to my advisor and I demand a lot from myself. (FG11-D-Nur)

Category 3: study schedule

The study schedule is a psychosocial risk factor, as it involves unpredictable study hours and night work, which can interfere with mental rest and productivity:

Subcategory 1: unpredictable study hours

There is hardly a Saturday or Sunday when I don’t study. (FG12-PM-Nur)

I take my laptop to work, and in between patients, or when a patient is absent, I do my graduate school work. (FG11-D-Dent-Surg)

Subcategory 2: night work

I had to change many routines because I work and have children. I had to switch to the night shift so I could devote more time to my postgraduate studies. (FG4-D-Nur)

Nighttime fatigue makes it difficult to think clearly the next day. You can’t write anything properly. (FG5-PM-Nur)

Category 4: research

The psychosocial risk factors related to research are academic distance, difficulties in the project and research, a research area distinct from work, and a solitary path:

Subcategory 1: academic distance

I have always worked in healthcare and had more difficulties... understanding the academic context, getting involved, producing articles. Because I am more distant from this practice. (FG12-D-Nur)

I spent a long time just working in healthcare. No matter how much we read and study, it seems that it is not the same as when we left college. (FG13-PM-Nur)

Subcategory 2: difficulties: the project and research

I feel unsure that I am on the right track, following the program’s requirements, which have scientific value. (FG13-DD-Psycho)

Because of the pandemic, my teacher suggested a project, and it was not a topic that I was very familiar with. (FG5-M-Nur)

Subcategory 3: research area different from the professional one

I have never worked in public health. It was an even greater challenge [master’s degree in this area], because I have worked in hospitals my whole life. (FG8-D-Nur)

My work has no connection with my research and nursing. It has been put on the back burner; I find it very difficult. (FG1-DD-Nur)

Subcategory 4: lonely journey

Graduate school is an environment where we feel very lonely. (FG8-D-Nur)

I am alone in my project; I have no undergraduate research students to help me; I have no collaborators. (FG2-M-Phy-Ther)

Qualitative analysis allowed us to construct a taxonomic organization of psychosocial risk factors in graduate school, presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Representation of the taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors in graduate school stricto sensu.

Discussion

Based on the qualitative results of this study, a taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors in master’s and doctoral programs was constructed.

Based on the theoretical framework, which includes psychosocial risk factors at work^9-12, the taxonomy was constructed inductively and deductively, based on already consolidated applicable nomenclatures and new nomenclatures extracted inductively, due to the academic peculiarity of stricto sensu graduate studies.

According to the analysis, it can be stated that psychosocial risks in graduate studies stem from deficiencies in the organization and management of the study, as well as from a problematic context or content, which can have negative effects on psychological, physical, and social aspects. Understanding that psychosocial risks can have negative effects on the well-being of graduate students, the conditions conducive to psychosocial risks are psychosocial risk factors, which are multidimensional and linked to the context and content of the study.

In this regard, academic stress may arise from frequent demands for performance⁵. This scenario is critically discussed by researchers from Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and China²⁵, who highlight that more than one-third of doctoral students are at risk of developing psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety and depression, associated with pressures for productivity and recognition.

The often bureaucratic academic stages are notable psychosocial risk factors in graduate school. Researchers show that the main barriers to research are lack of resources, difficulties in obtaining ethical approval, lack of participants, and lifelong responsibilities. Organizational barriers may be associated with reactions such as fear of failure and feelings of distress regarding the publication of research. In addition, attempts to obtain results for certain studies are slow due to bureaucratic procedures²⁶.

A survey in the United States of 568 doctoral students in 53 nursing schools highlighted financial challenges, stress about course costs, and living expenses. Students expressed frustration in obtaining research funding, leading some to work full-time²⁷. Financial insecurity is a challenge in graduate school^28,29. Therefore, these financial setbacks, combined with the lack of labor rights, are relevant psychosocial risk factors.

In relation to financial and social devaluation, there is a lack of recognition and appreciation of graduate studies stricto sensu by society and the labor market in general. In a study involving 47 nurses with doctorates in the United Kingdom, participants expressed feeling undervalued in the clinical area, facing low wages and a lack of prospects for improvement³⁰.

Regarding relationships, a study with doctoral students and residents concluded that participants felt a strong sense of comparison, exclusion, and difficulty competing with colleagues, worrying about their ability to develop research skills³¹. Furthermore, the relationship with the advisor can be a psychosocial risk factor due to distance, bullying, and conflicts, resulting in stress, loneliness, incompetence, and frustration^29,32. These findings converge with those reported by researchers in Canada and England³³, who point out that the advisor-advisee relationship, when marked by power imbalances and ineffective communication, can become one of the main triggers for psychological distress and dropout from graduate programs. Furthermore, the authority, behavior, and communication style of advisors can intimidate students³⁴.

Advisors should recognize the power discrepancy and consider generational, gender, and cultural factors when providing feedback. They need to receive training and be open to constructive comments from students, who should be empowered to express their opinions in a safe environment³⁴. However, hierarchy, aggressive communication, distancing, and bullying can compromise the effectiveness of supervision.

In mid-adulthood, the challenges of graduate school include career consolidation, personal development, and balancing personal and family responsibilities. These factors involve reconciling personal, family, and academic time, as well as a lack of guidance and support in administrative processes³⁵. Although dedication to academic life is important, it is necessary to prioritize family, friends, and physical and mental health, considering them as protective psychosocial factors.

In this sense, the multiple demands of academic performance and productivity often conflict with personal needs, generating overload, feelings of guilt, and compromised mental health, as observed in this study. In addition, social isolation and the difficulty of reconciling family and academic responsibilities are important sources of psychological distress among doctoral students, which can culminate in symptoms of anxiety and emotional exhaustion²⁹. With regard to the covid-19 pandemic, there has been a transition in teaching strategies, moving from face-to-face to online (synchronous and asynchronous) modes, which may have influenced students’ health, including their mental workload³⁶. Regarding academic resources, financial and academic support are factors that contribute to the success of a research project³⁷. Thus, activity loads are barriers to scientific research²⁶. From this perspective, during graduate studies, there may be possible changes in activity patterns, sleep schedules, and social interactions³⁸. Specifically, doctoral students demonstrate a lower level of overall mental well-being, a higher level of behavioral disturbances, somatic symptoms, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep problems³⁹. Research conducted by American researchers⁴⁰ reinforces that the prevalence of depressive symptoms in graduate students is significantly higher than in the general population, signaling a structural problem in academic conditions that requires institutional attention. Evidence from Sweden has revealed that professionals may have difficulty adapting to the academic pace due to their experience in making quick decisions.

Students coming from previous studies are seen as more apt to engage in research and more comfortable in the academic environment, resulting in greater confidence in their abilities⁵.

It is important to implement improvements in the program and the research process, offering extra courses in statistical analysis and writing²⁷. Guidance on ethics committee rules and an increase in institutions that fund research can increase researchers’ enthusiasm for publishing, making graduate school more enjoyable⁴¹.

In graduate school, research projects require independent work, self-discipline, and responsibility⁴². Thus, this path is often taken more autonomously, with few collaborations or partnerships. However, research also provides students with experience in applying the scientific method, generating publications, enhancing their academic profile, and providing opportunities for networking with professors, researchers, and professionals⁴², which tends to intensify social relationships⁴³, mitigating the solitary path.

It was found that constructing a detailed taxonomy made it possible to present these psychosocial risk factors in a systematic way. This facilitates the understanding of the different dimensions of psychosocial risk factors faced by graduate students, allowing the development of more targeted intervention strategies. Academic institutions and advisors can use this taxonomy to implement support programs that address students’ needs, with a healthier and more sustainable environment for academic, personal, and professional development.

Among the limitations, the research was conducted at a single Brazilian public higher education institution offering graduate programs in the health field. In addition, data collection was carried out with a specific group of graduate students who were balancing work and study, and the majority were nurses. However, there are perceptions from students who dedicated themselves exclusively to other levels of education, such as a master’s degree or a period of doctoral study, which contributes to the credibility of the findings and their generalization to full-time graduate students. There was also participation from graduate students who work and receive scholarships from funding agencies, which corroborated the findings based on the experience of this group.

Finally, psychosocial risk factors in graduate, master’s, and doctoral programs can be defined as risk factors or agents existing in the context or content of the study, with the capacity to generate psychosocial risks for master’s or doctoral students, that is, harmful physical, psychological, or social consequences for these individuals. Among these consequences are conditions or illnesses such as burnout syndrome, stress, and anxiety. These findings echo the critical analyses of scholars in Finland⁴⁴, who emphasize how pressure for productivity, the precariousness of scholarships, and the instability of academic careers are factors in students’ psychological distress, demanding institutional responses.

It is worth noting that psychosocial risk factors have their specificities in terms of the context and content of the study/research. Furthermore, these risk factors are evolving, and new factors may emerge and adapt, requiring taxonomic adjustments as the scenario develops. Regarding the implications for the advancement of scientific knowledge, it is hoped that, with the qualitative results and the proposed taxonomic organization, HEIs and higher education and postgraduate bodies, both in Brazil and worldwide, will pay attention to these risk factors in postgraduate education. In this way, it is possible to create or improve interventions based on this evidence to promote health and prevent diseases, especially those of a psychosocial nature, and to provide a healthier and more successful training process for future teachers and researchers.

The taxonomy of this study is shown in Figure 1, summarizing the dimensions of psychosocial risk factors in graduate studies stricto sensu identified from the research conducted. In order to increase its visibility and open access to scientific knowledge, the complete material is available in the institutional repository of the University of São Paulo (USP), linked to the doctoral thesis of the first author of this article⁴⁵.

The content is also published in digital collection format, in volume two, by the Editorial Support Center of the Ribeirão Preto School of Nursing at USP⁴⁶ and on the first author’s personal public page^(f), in order to provide free access to researchers, professionals in the field, and people interested in the topic and the taxonomy constructed.

• *
  Article extracted from the doctoral thesis: Cassiano C. Riscos psicossociais relacionados às vivências profissionais e acadêmicas de pós-graduandos trabalhadores: construção e validação de uma coletânea de livros eletrônicos. [Psychosocial risks related to the professional and academic experiences of working graduate students: construction and validation of a collection of electronic books]. Ribeirão Preto: Ribeirão Preto School of Nursing, University of São Paulo; 2025. doi: 10.11606/T.83.2025.tde-21052025-104135.
• Cassiano C, Leal LA, Bernardes MA, Carvalho JCM, Henriques SH. Building a taxonomy of psychosocial risk factors in stricto sensu graduate studies. Interface (Botucatu). 2026; 30: e260092 https://doi.org/10.1590/interface.260092
• Funding
  National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). CNPq Notice 07/2022, Process No. 141196/2022-0, Doctoral Scholarship.
  This work was carried out with the support of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil. Funding Code 001.
• Translator
  Félix Héctor Rigoli Caceres
• (f)
  Available at: https://ebookscarolinacassiano.my.canva.site/

Data Availability

The contents underlying the research text are non-handwritten contents.

References

• ¹ Amani J, Myeya H, Mhewa M. Understanding the motives for pursuing postgraduate studies and causes of late completion: supervisors and supervisees’ experiences. SAGE Open. 2022; 12(3):1-12. doi: 10.1177/21582440221109586.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221109586
• ² Gong J, Chen M, Li Q. The sources of research self-efficacy in postgraduate nursing students: a qualitative study. Healthcare (Basel). 2022; 10(9):1712. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10091712.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091712
• ³ Tullet J, Leigh J, Coke B, Fisher D, Haszczyn J, Houghton S, et al. Using reflective practice to support PhD students in the biosciences. Elife. 2024; 13:e92365. doi: 10.7554/eLife.92365.
  » https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92365
• ⁴ Naumann S, Matyjek M, Bögl K, Dziobek I. Doctoral researchers' mental health and PhD training satisfaction during the German COVID-19 lockdown: results from an international research sample. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):22176. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26601-4.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26601-4
• ⁵ Nylander E, Hjort M. Information literacies of PhD students: a hermeneutic dialectic study within the health sciences. New Rev Acad Librarianship. 2022; 28(1):1-21. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2020.1819353.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2020.1819353
• ⁶ Rockman DA, Aderibigbe JK, Allen-Ile CO, Mahembe B, Hamman-Fisher DA. Working-class postgraduates’ perceptions of studying while working at a selected university. SA J Hum Resour Manag. 2022; 20:a1962. doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.1962.
  » https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v20i0.1962
• ⁷ Showalter V, Russian C, Gonzales J, Ari A. Students' perceived self-efficacy, expectations, barriers, and support in enrolling in a master's degree program in respiratory care. Can J Respir Ther. 2021; 57:154-9. doi: 10.29390/cjrt-2021-020.
  » https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2021-020
• ⁸ Wang Y, Li W. The impostor phenomenon among doctoral students: a scoping review. Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1233434. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1233434.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1233434
• ⁹ European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. E-guide to managing stress and psychosocial risks. Bilbao: OSHA; 2024.
• ¹⁰ European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Psychosocial risks and mental health at work. Bilbao: OSHA; 2024.
• ¹¹ European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Psychosocial risks and workers health. Bilbao: OSHwiki; 2022.
• ¹² Organización Internacional del Trabajo. Factores psicosociales en el trabajo: naturaleza, incidencia y prevención. Genebra: OIT; 1984.
• ¹³ Fteropoulli T, Tyagi M, Hirani SP, Kennedy F, Picaut N, Cullen S, et al. Psychosocial risk factors for health-related quality of life in adult congenital heart disease. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023; 38(1):70-83. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000897.
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0000000000000897
• ¹⁴ Rodrigues CML, Correa DRC. Mapeamento de fatores de risco e de proteção psicossocial no ensino superior. Linhas Crit. 2022; 28:e43443. doi: 10.26512/lc28202243443.
  » https://doi.org/10.26512/lc28202243443
• ¹⁵ Regly T, Cavalcanti MT, Pimenta RM, Jesus EMF, Castro RM. Da elaboração de uma taxonomia voltada às humanidades digitais no cenário brasileiro: a TaDiRAH e sua proposta multilingue. Rev Cient UEM. 2024; 4(1).
• ¹⁶ Pepin KR, Sawyer JC. The value of wellness-related courses in higher education. BHAC. 2022; 6(1):63-71. doi: 10.18061/bhac.v6i1.8647.
  » https://doi.org/10.18061/bhac.v6i1.8647
• ¹⁷ Souza VRS, Marziale MHP, Silva GTR, Nascimento PL. Tradução e validação para a língua portuguesa e avaliação do guia COREQ. Acta Paul Enferm. 2021; 34:eAPE02631. doi: 10.37689/acta-ape/2021AO02631.
  » https://doi.org/10.37689/acta-ape/2021AO02631
• ¹⁸ Gatti BA. Grupo focal na pesquisa em ciências sociais e humanas. Brasília, DF: Líber Livro; 2012.
• ¹⁹ Fontanella BJB, Ricas J, Turato ER. Amostragem por saturação em pesquisas qualitativas em saúde: contribuições teóricas. Cad Saude Publica. 2008; 24(1):17-27. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2008000100003.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2008000100003
• ²⁰ Silva IM, Nogueira TQS, Couto DN, Lima PCTM, Bonfim NSC, Sousa IGV, et al. Feasibility of a snowball sampling survey to study active surveillance for thyroid microcarcinoma treatment among endocrinologists and surgeons of Brazil. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2022; 88 Suppl 4:163-9. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.01.005.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2022.01.005
• ²¹ Henriques SH. Riscos psicossociais relacionados ao estresse no trabalho das equipes de saúde da família e estratégias de gerenciamento [tese]. Ribeirão Preto (SP): Universidade de São Paulo; 2006.
• ²² Chen H. Anxiety or enjoyment, I feel pleasant to welcome them both: thematic analysis of a Chinese PhD student's personal growth experiences. Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1173734. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1173734.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1173734
• ²³ Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualit Health Res. 2016; 26(13):1753-60. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
• ²⁴ Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualit Res Psychol. 2021; 18(3):328-52. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
• ²⁵ Levecque K, Anseel F, Beuckelaer A, Van Der Heyden J, Gisle L. Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Res Policy. 2017; 46(4):868-79. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008
• ²⁶ Alsiri NF, Alansari FH, Sadeq AH. The barriers of scientific research in physiotherapy. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2022; 17(4):537-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.02.004.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2022.02.004
• ²⁷ Lee MA, Prevost SS, Scott LD, Zangaro G. Support for doctoral nursing students in PhD programs in the United States. J Prof Nurs. 2023; 46:223-30. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.03.018.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.03.018
• ²⁸ Vilser M, Gentele S, Mausz I. Putting PhD students front and center: an empirical analysis using the Effort-Reward Imbalance Model. Front Psychol. 2024; 14:1298242. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1298242.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1298242
• ²⁹ Cassiano C, Guimarães VHA, Gonçalves JRL. “Não importa o que você sente ou pensa, você precisa de ser produtivo e eficiente”: vivências e percepções dos estudantes de mestrado e doutorado no Brasil. Braz J Health Rev. 2023; 6(2):5860-79. doi: 10.34119/bjhrv6n2-114.
  » https://doi.org/10.34119/bjhrv6n2-114
• ³⁰ Hampshaw S, Cooke J, Robertson S, Wood E, King R, Tod A. Understanding the value of a PhD for post-doctoral registered UK nurses: a survey. J Nurs Manag. 2022; 30(4):1011-7. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13581.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13581
• ³¹ Chakraverty D, Cavazos JE, Jeffe DB. Exploring reasons for MD-PhD trainees’ experiences of impostor phenomenon. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1):333. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03396-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03396-6
• ³² Bakker CR, Ommering BWC, Beaufort AJ, Dekker FW, Bustraan J. The bumpy ride to a medical PhD degree: a qualitative study on factors influencing motivation. BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04973-z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04973-z
• ³³ Sverdlik A, Hall NC, McAlpine L, Hubbard K. Journeys of PhD students: challenges and strategies for wellbeing. Int J Dr Stud. 2018; 13:361-88. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2017.1408582.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2017.1408582
• ³⁴ Tolleson S, Truong M, Rosario N. Navigating power dynamics between pharmacy preceptors and learners. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2024; 13:100408. doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100408.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100408
• ³⁵ Boonekamp GMM, Pérez-Wilson P. Cómo cursar un doctorado en el extranjero y no morir en el intento. Gac Sanit. 2023; 37:102331. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2023.102331.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2023.102331
• ³⁶ Rodríguez-Herrera C, Villalobos-Molina V, Barría-Emparán T, Guillén-Jiménez V, Mardones-Carpanetti F. Mental workload, musculoskeletal discomfort and physical activity level in master's degree students in the COVID-19 context: a pilot study. Work. 2024; 77(3):865-72. doi: 10.3233/WOR-220249.
  » https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-220249
• ³⁷ Hart J, Hakim J, Kaur R, Jeremy R, Coorey G, Kalman E, et al. Research supervisors' views of barriers and enablers for research projects undertaken by medical students; a mixed methods evaluation of a post-graduate medical degree research project program. BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1):370. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03429-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03429-0
• ³⁸ Sarma MS, Gildner TE, Howells ME, Lew-Levy S, Trumble BC, Fuentes A. There and back again: the biosocial dynamics of returning from the field. Am J Hum Biol. 2022; 34 Suppl 1:e23673. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.23673.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23673
• ³⁹ Pizuńska D, Golińska PB, Małek A, Radziwiłłowicz W. Well-being among PhD candidates. Psychiatr Pol. 2021; 55(4):901-14. doi: 10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/114121.
  » https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/114121
• ⁴⁰ Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, Vanderford NL. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36(3):282-4. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089
• ⁴¹ Alim-Uysal BA, Goker-Kamali S, Machado R. Difficulties experienced by endodontics researchers in conducting studies and writing papers. Restor Dent Endod. 2022; 47(2):e20. doi: 10.5395/rde.2022.47.e20.
  » https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2022.47.e20
• ⁴² Rahim N, Rafq K, Nesar S, Naeem S, Anjum F, Mughal MA. Adaptation of research project requirement at pharmacy undergraduate studies: students' perception, attitude, and experiences. Scientifica (Cairo). 2024; 2024:8144325. doi: 10.1155/2024/8144325.
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8144325
• ⁴³ Ullrich LE, Ogawa JR, Jones-London MD. A retrospective analysis of career outcomes in neuroscience. eNeuro. 2024; 11(5):ENEURO.0054-24.2024. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0054-24.2024.
  » https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0054-24.2024
• ⁴⁴ Pappa S, Elomaa M, Perälä-Littunen S. Sources of stress and scholarly identity: the case of international doctoral students of education in Finland. High Educ. 2020; 80(3):173-92. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00473-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00473-6
• ⁴⁵ Cassiano C. Riscos psicossociais relacionados às vivências profissionais e acadêmicas de pós-graduandos trabalhadores: construção e validação de uma coletânea de livros eletrônicos [tese]. Ribeirão Preto (SP): Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo; 2025. doi: 10.11606/T.83.2025.tde-21052025-104135.
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/T.83.2025.tde-21052025-104135
• ⁴⁶ Cassiano C. Fatores de risco psicossociais na pós-graduação. Ribeirão Preto: Centro de Apoio Editorial da Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo; 2025. (Coletânea sobre fatores de risco psicossociais; v. 2).

Edited by

• Editor
  Erotildes Maria Leal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8468-4571

• Associated editor
  Alberto Rodolfo Velzi Diaz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6304-2150

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Apr 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  28 Mar 2025
• Accepted
  07 Jan 2026