Name
Measuring Medical Student Flourishing and Wellbeing Using a Validated
Survey
Date & Time
Sunday, June 7, 2026, 4:38 PM - 4:53 PM
Location Name
Lamar B
Speakers
Authors
Leah Quinn, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine
Jayde Powell, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine
Ramzan Shahid, Loyola University Medical Center
Sarah Thilges, Loyola University Medical Center
Jhansi Raju, Loyola University Medical Center
Presentation Topic(s)
Student Support
Description
PURPOSE: Student wellbeing has become a priority among medical schools,
and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accreditation standard
requires schools to have a mechanism to promote student wellbeing. This study
aims to assess medical student wellbeing, explore protective and risk
factors, evaluate changes in flourishing during the course of medical school,
and generate data to inform the ongoing development of wellness programming
at our institution.
METHODS: A baseline survey was administered electronically via REDCap to
178 first-year (M1) students with planned follow-up at year end and annually
thereafter. Surveys were administered to 200 third-year (M3) students for
comparison. Surveys included questions covering demographics, the Harvard
Flourishing Measure, burnout, and other questions related to wellbeing.
Descriptive statistics and group comparisons were performed using
independent-samples t-tests with statistical significance set at p <0.05.
RESULTS: 169/178 (94%) first-year and 70/200 (35%) third-year students
responded to the survey. M1 students reported higher mean Secure Flourishing
Index (SFI) scores overall compared to M3 students (SFI 7.53 vs 7.0,
p=0.002). M1 students also reported higher scores across five of six domains,
including Happiness and Life Satisfaction (7.66 vs 6.71, p<0.001), Mental
and Physical Health (7.38 vs 6.11, p<0.001), and Meaning and Purpose (8.23
vs 7.61, p=0.009). Burnout levels were higher in M3 students (2.55 vs 2.04,
p<0.001). Within the M1 cohort, baseline flourishing was significantly
higher among male students (7.94 vs 7.26, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: By identifying groups at higher risk, and time points of
increased stress, this study can guide effective institutional wellness
support and shift wellness programming and targeted interventions from
reactive to proactive. Future work will include a follow-up assessment of the
first-year cohort after a self-selected wellness elective, and annual
follow-up thereafter.
and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accreditation standard
requires schools to have a mechanism to promote student wellbeing. This study
aims to assess medical student wellbeing, explore protective and risk
factors, evaluate changes in flourishing during the course of medical school,
and generate data to inform the ongoing development of wellness programming
at our institution.
METHODS: A baseline survey was administered electronically via REDCap to
178 first-year (M1) students with planned follow-up at year end and annually
thereafter. Surveys were administered to 200 third-year (M3) students for
comparison. Surveys included questions covering demographics, the Harvard
Flourishing Measure, burnout, and other questions related to wellbeing.
Descriptive statistics and group comparisons were performed using
independent-samples t-tests with statistical significance set at p <0.05.
RESULTS: 169/178 (94%) first-year and 70/200 (35%) third-year students
responded to the survey. M1 students reported higher mean Secure Flourishing
Index (SFI) scores overall compared to M3 students (SFI 7.53 vs 7.0,
p=0.002). M1 students also reported higher scores across five of six domains,
including Happiness and Life Satisfaction (7.66 vs 6.71, p<0.001), Mental
and Physical Health (7.38 vs 6.11, p<0.001), and Meaning and Purpose (8.23
vs 7.61, p=0.009). Burnout levels were higher in M3 students (2.55 vs 2.04,
p<0.001). Within the M1 cohort, baseline flourishing was significantly
higher among male students (7.94 vs 7.26, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: By identifying groups at higher risk, and time points of
increased stress, this study can guide effective institutional wellness
support and shift wellness programming and targeted interventions from
reactive to proactive. Future work will include a follow-up assessment of the
first-year cohort after a self-selected wellness elective, and annual
follow-up thereafter.
Presentation Tag(s)
Student Presentation