No abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of stress management programs in dental education by systematic review of the literature. The number of studies concerning stress management programs for dental students is limited compared with studies discussing sources of stress. Several types of programs for stress management have been reported, and differ in their duration, content, and outcomes. Two main strategies have been used to help stressed students, ie, decreasing the number of stressors and increasing the ability to cope with stress. The first strategy includes several components, such as reducing fear of failure and workload pressure due to examinations and requirements. The second strategy includes coping techniques, such as deep breathing exercises. Although positive effects have been reported for most of the programs, these have mainly been evaluated using subjective self-report measures. There is a need for more research to identify the most effective stress management program.

A theoretical distinction within self–control, between stop control and start control, was investigated in two studies. Study 1 consisted of a pilot study in which expert ratings of existing self–control items were used to distinguish between stop and start control items and a confirmatory factor analyses of these items using a student sample ( N = 474). Also, stop and start control were related to overall affect and behavioural outcomes. Stop control was negatively related to negative affect, whereas start control was positively related to positive affect. Study 2 ( N = 226) replicated some of these findings; stop control was the best predictor (−) of smoking and alcohol consumption whereas start control was the best predictor (+) of exercising and studying. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ObjectiveStress among dental students can be a significant threat, resulting in physical and/or mental illness, and have a negative effect on students’ performance and the professional practice of dentistry. Stress can occur from different sources. The purpose of this study is to test whether the year of study has an effect on the stress levels of dental students.MethodOur study consisted of a cross-sectional survey using a modified version of the Dental Environment Stress (DES) questionnaire. The questionnaires were filled out by male undergraduate dental students at King Saud University in Riyadh City during the 2010–2011 academic year (n = 214).ResultsThe results show the most common sources of stress: examinations and completing clinical requirements. Moreover, in the five-year lecture-based traditional curriculum, the third year students reported the highest level of stress, whereas the first year reported the lowest level of stress.ConclusionThird year undergraduate dental students reported the highest level of stress. This stress could be reduced by reviewing and modifying the dental curriculum by allowing students to have contact with patients more gradually, starting from the first year, in addition to adding stress prevention and intervention programs in dental curricula.

Purpose – Individuals differ in their levels of self-control. Trait self-control has been found to relate positively to desirable and negatively to undesirable behaviors in contexts like physical health, academic performance, and criminality. The purpose of this study is to examine the relevance of trait self-control in work-settings. The authors distinguished between two types of self-control, stop-control (inhibitory control) and start-control (initiatory control), and tested their differential validity in predicting contextual performance. Design/methodology/approach – In two independent employee samples, stop-control, start-control, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), personal initiative, and proactive coping were measured. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) was added in Study 2. Findings – Results showed that only start-control was positively related to OCB, personal initiative, and proactive coping. Both stop-control and start-control were negatively related to CWB. Research limitations/implications – Findings support the validity of distinguishing between stop-control and start-control, suggesting that self-control theory and models should be refined to incorporate this distinction. Limitations include the correlational design and self-report measures. Although results were similar across two independent studies, future research is needed to test the generalizability of the conclusions in other settings, using non-self-report data. Practical implications – The distinction between stop-control and start-control may help organizations in selecting staff and assigning tasks. Originality/value – The present research introduces the distinction between two conceptually different types of self-control (stop-control and start-control), demonstrating their relevance to work-related behavior.