PurposeThe stress-coping model is extensively studied in the academic context. Past studies have primarily focused on different coping strategies adopted by students to overcome academic stress. However, an important question, how to equip students to cope with stress, was ignored. Drawing on stress-coping theory and the extracurricular activity (ECA) literature, the current study investigates the intervention of ECA participation on students’ coping, academic performance, and well-being in a natural setting.Design/methodology/approachThe study follows a “cross-sectional post-test only quasi-experimental design” using a natural experimental setting.FindingsThe findings indicate that participation in ECA has a significant influence on academic outcomes. Different types of ECA participation influence well-being, whereas time spent on ECA positively affects academic performance. Further, the findings also indicate that involvement in ECA moderates the relationship between academic stress and coping.Practical implicationsThe study results have practical implications for designing interventional ECA to enhance students’ academic outcomes and well-being.Originality/valueThe study indicates the effectiveness of ECA participation in dealing with academic stress and the development of constructive coping strategies. Hence, the authors advise the academic administrators to integrate ECA in the academic setting.

PurposeThe present study develops, conceptualizes and validates a scale based on the transactional stress theory to assess the perceived challenge and hindrance demands of doctoral programs that impact doctoral students’ psychological well-being.Design/methodology/approachThis research employs an exploratory-mixed methodology comprising five phases with a sequential qualitative-quantitative approach. A rigorous scale development process is adopted to validate the instrument’s psychometric properties. The study respondents are Indian full-time doctoral students in the management discipline.FindingsThe findings show that the construct of perceived challenge and hindrance demands is a first-order four-factor and a second-order two-factor model. The study has validated the scale to capture the challenge and hindrance demands of doctoral research programs with the following sub-constructs: doctoral program resource inadequacies, doctoral program ambiguity, doctoral program workload and complexity.Practical implicationsThe recommended challenge demands and hindrance demands (CHD) scale provides a benchmark for doctoral institutes and program supervisors in focussing on research students’ perception of their doctoral education demands to reduce the strain and increase their well-being during their doctoral program journey.Originality/valueHindrance demands adversely influence the motivation resources needed for doctoral education; challenge demands positively impact the research students’ internal resources.

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.