Exploring students’ well-being: insights from Indonesian fast-track postgraduate program

Context and relevance. Pursuing a postgraduate degree in a fast-track program presents significant challenges to students’ well-being. Objective. This study aims to explore the well-being of Indonesian postgraduate students in fast-track programs, focusing on their psychological challenges, coping strategies, and the role of coping self-efficacy (CSE) in predicting well-being. Methods and materials. The mixed-methods approach combines quantitative data from an e-survey with qualitative data from focus group discussions. The study involved 180 PMDSU awardees who completed the questionnaire, while 24 participants were selected for focus group discussions. The participants, aged 21–32 (M = 25,28; SD = 1,94; 42,2% of male and 57,8% of female participants), were from various Indonesian universities. Results. The results integrate quantitative findings with qualitative insights into challenges, support systems, and coping strategies among fast-track scholarship awardees. The multiple regression analyses revealed that obtaining social support coping (GS) and stopping unpleasant emotional and thought coping (SE) were significant predictors of various aspects of well-being. Specifically, GS strongly predicted life satisfaction (β = 0,430; p < 0,001) and positive affect (β = 0,344; p < 0,001), and was negatively associated with negative affect (β = −0,244; p = 0,007). SE significantly enhanced positive affect (β = 0,468; p < 0,001), reduced negative affect (β = −0,562; p < 0,001), and increased balance affect (β = 0,568; p < 0,001). Sex significantly predicted negative affect (β = 0,254; p < 0,001) and balance affect (β = –0,182, p = 0,001), with females reporting higher negative affect and lower balance affect. No significant effect was found for satisfaction with life or positive affect. Conclusions. The study concludes that awardees face diverse challenges and perceive their coping strategies as effective in overcoming difficulties, achieving academic success, and maintaining well-being. The findings highlight the critical role of emotional regulation and seeking social support as coping strategies in maintaining well-being.

Introduction

In 2013, the Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology launched a fast-track doctoral scholarship program called PMDSU, which allows top bachelor’s graduates to bypass a master’s degree and directly pursue a PhD (Diktiristek, 2023). The program accelerated postgraduate education to increase the quality of Indonesia’s human resources and global competitiveness (Diktiristek, 2023; Rizal et al., 2020). It also fosters a strong academic environment under the guidance of distinguished supervisors with proven research and teaching credentials (Diktiristek, 2023).

Participating in an accelerated postgraduate program presents significant challenges that can impact students’ well-being. The intense and competitive environment, along with role conflicts between work, family, and study, adds to the pressure (Hendriani, 2017; Lemée et al., 2020). These demands often lead to psychological problems, including stress and depression, insomnia, and perceived stress, which are common among doctoral students (Chunhong et al., 2025; Lemée et al., 2020). Additional barriers stem from the high standards for writing research reports and publishing scientific articles (Shamsi, Osam, 2022), the demand for research excellence (McDowall, Ramos, 2024), limited resources, and difficulties in the mentoring process (Roos et al., 2021).

The transactional model of stress and coping explains that individuals experience stress not solely due to external demands, but through a process of cognitive appraisal involving perceived threat and perceived coping resources (Lazarus, Folkman, 1984). In this context, coping self-efficacy (CSE), one's belief in their ability to manage stressors, plays a critical role in determining how individuals regulate their emotions and maintain subjective well-being. For instance, Kaya and Odacı (2024) found that CSE significantly contributes to higher levels of life satisfaction and emotional well-being. Similarly, Ngooi et al. (2022) observed that increases in CSE led to measurable improvements in subjective well-being among individuals with acute psychological distress. The mechanism behind this relationship appears to involve emotion regulation: individuals with high CSE tend to engage in more adaptive emotion regulation strategies such as reappraisal and acceptance, which reduce psychological distress and promote positive affect (Luberto et al., 2014; Rosenbaum et al., 2022). Furthermore, Saeed et al. (2024) highlight that CSE has effects on well-being. Taken together, these findings suggest that CSE facilitates subjective well-being not only by influencing how individuals appraise stress, but also by promoting effective emotional responses through adaptive coping strategies.

Policymakers should prioritise the mental health of fast-track doctoral students to ensure their well-being and sustained contributions to scientific advancement. Addressing these concerns is crucial, as mental health directly impacts research quality and productivity (Zhang et al., 2022), attrition rates (Stevens et al., 2023), and influences the nation’s academic and research landscape (Levecque et al., 2017). This study explores the challenges and coping mechanisms of fast-track scholars in Indonesia, particularly those in the PMDSU program. It fills a gap in the literature, which has largely overlooked the unique pressures of such programs (Lemée et al., 2020).

This study combines quantitative e-surveys and qualitative focus group discussions to examine the well-being of fast-track scholarship awardees. It identifies challenges, coping strategies, and well-being predictors to inform policies that enhance mental health, support academic success, and strengthen the competitiveness of Indonesian higher education.

The PMDSU scholarship program quickly tracks top bachelor’s degree graduates in PhD programs to strengthen Indonesia’s human resources and global competitiveness. However, the program’s accelerated nature creates psychological challenges due to heightened competition and academic pressure. This study fills a gap in the literature by examining the unique experiences of fast-track scholars in Indonesia and identifying their specific challenges and coping mechanisms. The findings offer practical recommendations for improving academic and mental health outcomes, ultimately enhancing the quality of Indonesian higher education. Therefore, this study aims to explore the well-being of Indonesian postgraduate students in fast-track programs, focusing on their psychological challenges, coping strategies, and the role of coping self-efficacy (CSE) in predicting well-being.

Materials and methods

This study employed a mixed-methods approach with convergent design, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative focus group discussions (FGDs). The quantitative data were collected through an e-survey platform.

Participants

This study involved 180 PMDSU scholarship awardees from various universities aged 21–32 years (M = 25,3; SD = 1,94). Of the participants, 42,2% were male and 57,8% were female. Additionally, 24 participants joined focus group discussions, which were divided into four groups: one for alumni and three for awardees from different cohorts.

Data collection procedures

The quantitative data were collected online via the Jotform.com platform. The scholarship manager distributed the questionnaire link via email to all awardees, and participation was voluntary, allowing respondents to withdraw at any time. Qualitative data were gathered through face‒to‒face focus group discussions (FGDs). Before the FGDs, the facilitators attended a briefing session to ensure a smooth and consistent discussion process. This session provided detailed instructions on how to use the FGD guide and manage discussions. Each FGD was led by a psychologist and observed by a designated observer.

Instruments

The quantitative data were collected via three measurement instruments adapted for Indonesia. This study adopted the concept of subjective well-being and used the “Satisfaction with Life Scale” (SWLS) and the “Positive and Negative Experience Scale” (SPANE) to define and assess well-being. The SWLS assesses individuals’ overall life satisfaction (α = 0,828) (Akhtar, 2019). The SPANE measures the frequency of positive and negative emotions over the past four weeks (α = 0,853–0,861) (Akhtar, 2019). The “Coping Self-Efficacy Scale” (CSES) evaluates three factors: problem-focused coping, regulation of unpleasant emotions and thoughts, and seeking support from friends and family (26 items; α = 0,769–0,920) (Nurhidayah, 2021).

The FGD guidelines were developed, reviewed, and conducted by professional psychologists. The discussions focused on (1) the academic and nonacademic challenges commonly faced by awardees, (2) the psychosocial support received by awardees, and (3) strategies for overcoming these challenges.

Data analysis

Quantitative data from the e-survey were analysed via descriptive statistics to assess group differences. To further examine participant characteristics, additional analyses compared mean scores by gender, age group, and marital status. Normality tests were conducted for each variable; parametric tests (t-test, ANOVA) were used when normality was met, otherwise non-parametric tests (Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis) were applied. Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships among predictor variables. Since the majority of the variables did not meet the assumption of normality, Spearman’s rank correlation was employed. Significant correlations identified through this analysis informed subsequent multiple regression analyses to determine the predictors of the dependent variables. Multiple regression analysis was conducted after ensuring the following key assumptions: linearity, homoscedasticity, normality of the error distribution, independence of the error terms, and absence of multicollinearity. SPSS 25.0 was used for statistical analysis.

Qualitative data from the FGDs were analysed via thematic analysis to identify emerging themes aligned with the study’s objectives. Thematic analysis followed six steps (Braun, Clarke, 2006): (1) transcription, (2) keyword selection, (3) coding, (4) theme development, (5) conceptualisation, and (6) conceptual model development. This process involves structuring data into meaningful patterns, often guided by existing theories. The mixed method analysis was systematically conducted using a joint display, performed after the separate analyses of quantitative and qualitative data to visually integrate and compare the findings (Creswell, Inoue, 2024).

Results

This study examines predictors of subjective well-being on the basis of two components: life satisfaction (cognitive) and positive and negative affect (affective). The analysis tested sociodemographic factors (gender, marital status, and age group) and coping self-efficacy as potential predictors. The following section presents the study’s findings.

Quantitative insights

The participants’ characteristics are summarised in Table 1. The descriptive statistics indicate that female participants had higher mean scores for life satisfaction, negative affect, and social support coping. In contrast, males scored higher on positive affect, affect balance, problem-focused coping, and emotion regulation coping. Compared with married participants, unmarried participants had higher mean scores across all variables. The participants aged 21–24 had the highest scores on all the coping self-efficacy components. Those aged 25–28 years reported the lowest scores for life satisfaction and negative affect but shared the highest affect balance score with those aged 21–24.

A t-test and one-way ANOVA were conducted to examine group differences in subjective well-being and coping self-efficacy. No significant differences were found based on age or marital status. However, significant differences emerged between males and females regarding negative affect (p = 0,001) and affect balance (p = 0,009). All SWLS and CSES dimensions were significantly correlated. The results of the bivariate analysis are detailed in Table 2.

Multiple linear regression examined how coping self-efficacy factors predict subjective well-being components — life satisfaction (cognitive) and positive and negative affect (affective). The regression model was significant for life satisfaction (p < 0,001; R² = 0,273), positive affect (p < 0,001; R² = 0,465), negative affect (p < 0,001; R² = 0,468), and affect balance (p < 0,001; R² = 0,545). Social support coping was the only significant predictor across all the well-being components. Emotional regulation, coping, and sex were additional predictors of negative affect and affect balance. The detailed results are presented in Table 3.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and group comparisons of participant characteristics

Note. SWL = satisfaction with life; PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect; AffectB = affect balance; PF = problem-focused coping; SE = stop unpleasant emotional and thoughts coping; GS = get social support coping; SD = standard deviation. * p < 0,05; ** met the assumption of normality. Therefore, group comparisons were conducted using t-tests and ANOVA.

Table 2

Intercorrelations among the study variables

Note. * p < 0,05.

Table 3

Results of multiple regression analysis on predictors of well-being

Note. PF = problem-focused coping; SE = stopping unpleasant emotional and thought coping; GS = getting social support coping.

Qualitative insights

Three main points related to awardees — challenging times for students, coping strategies, and psychosocial support — have been identified through thematic analysis. The following is a description of the three main findings.

Challenges for students

PMDSU awardees face various challenges while pursuing their studies. These challenges arise from complex, competitive conditions and role conflicts between work, family, and academics. Researchers have classified them into seven categories.

Research process. Problems that arise in the research process start from the availability of infrastructure that can support research, the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic that impact the continuity of research, and the disbursement of research funds.

“The research funding is available; however, the disbursement timeline does not align with the research implementation schedule. Consequently, my team and I, along with our supervisor, must seek alternative funding sources to ensure that the research proceeds according to our planned publication timeline. The primary challenge we face is the institutional demand for increased publications, yet the existing funding and disbursement schedule do not adequately accommodate the financial requirements for publication.” (Al, M, Batch 6)

Learning process. In the learning process, the problems faced by scholarship awardees are related to their ability to master learning materials and basic supporting skills. For example, a lack of English proficiency impacts research publications.

“When I started my master's program, there was a lot I had to relearn. I took 24 credits, and at that time, classes were conducted online. Additionally, I had to undergo a special matriculation program for several months alongside undergraduate students to study field geology, as I did not have a background in that field.” (H, M, Batch 6).

Student and supervisor relations are often affected by the demanding schedules of supervisors, differences in interests and expectations, and the diverse characteristics of the supervisor team. Additionally, students are frequently assigned nonacademic responsibilities by their supervisors, limiting the time available for their research.

“My supervisor is extremely busy, making it difficult to meet with them. This has disrupted the progress of my research and dissertation. It is particularly challenging because I must learn from them, as there is no other faculty member with expertise in the methodology required for my study.” (R, F, Batch 4).

Scholarship program management. The fast-track scholarship program varied in administrative rules across universities, while unclear and unevenly distributed information from the central organiser added to the challenges.

“I request that the fast-track scholarship program have a centralised information centre to ensure that announcements or notifications are not relayed informally by word of mouth or through WhatsApp messages. Not everyone may receive or read the information on the same day, and there is a risk that important messages could be buried under other updates, leading to potential miscommunication.” (Jo, M, Batch 5).

Perceived expectations. Scholarship awardees felt discomfort with the "excellent scholar" label, as it created high expectations and pressure.

“We will eventually become young doctorate holders, and high social expectations will undoubtedly be placed upon us. It’s as if people will say, ‘You're a young doctor, how come you cannot do this? How come you cannot do that?’” (Mr, F, Batch 6)

Interpersonal relationships included difficulty in balancing family and student roles. Their demanding schedules often lead to isolation, limited self-actualisation, and a competitive rather than supportive peer environment.

“There is a lack of strong relationships among fellow scholarship awardees. As a result, if one of us underperforms or suddenly disappears from academic activities or campus life, we are unable to support each other effectively.” (Jo, M, Batch 5).

Self-management (intrapersonal). Fast-track scholarship awardees require strong self-management skills to navigate academic demands. However, difficulties in managing time, energy, and emotions negatively impact their academic progress, productivity, and self-perception.

“... but I personally still struggle to determine which tasks should be prioritised and how to manage my time effectively.” (Ar, M, Batch 5).

Coping strategies

In facing various challenges and demands during the study period, PMDSU scholarship awardees adopted various coping strategies. Researchers have identified four primary strategies most commonly employed in addressing problems.

Problem-focused coping involves strategies aimed at directly addressing challenges. The awardees employed various approaches, including coordinating with the university, focusing on achievable tasks, understanding and communicating with their supervisor, planning and managing energy, and seeking relevant information to support problem solving.

“Therefore, I focus more on taking action rather than overthinking things that become a burden. It’s fine to think, but it should be solution-oriented.” (F, M, Batch 6).

Emotion-focused coping involves strategies aimed at managing emotional responses to stressors through emotional expression, spiritual practices, acceptance of one’s circumstances, and self-encouragement.

“I adopt a ‘nothing to lose’ mindset, allowing myself to be more at peace. When something bad happens, I am more accepting because I approach it with sincerity. I feel more at ease and willing to accept unexpected or unfavourable situations.” (E, M, Batch 5).

Support involves seeking support and assistance from others by being open and asking for help from various sources.

“A peer group is extremely important to me. Fortunately, I have a friend with the same supervisor, which has been incredibly helpful—especially when my motivation drops, such as after a journal rejection, a postponed conference, or research delays due to COVID-19. These challenges can feel overwhelming, but having a supportive peer group in the faculty allows me to share experiences and stay motivated.” (R, F, Batch 4).

Maladaptive coping refers to strategies that neither resolve stressors nor effectively manage emotions. This included avoidance behaviours, such as withdrawing without notice or discontinuing studies, and ineffective emotional regulation strategies, such as self-harm or excessive emotional expression on social media.

"Because of the constant requests for revisions and other demands, I became so frustrated that I lost control of my emotions. I went to the bathroom and vented my anger by punching the wall until my hand bled — I was just that upset" (T, M, alumni).

Psychosocial support

There are four sources of psychosocial support obtained by students: supervisors, colleagues, family and partners, and program managers.

Supervisor support played a crucial role for the awardees, including open discussions and recognition of their achievements.

“My supervisor is someone who highly values and expresses appreciation. I believe that words of appreciation serve as a key factor in reigniting motivation and enthusiasm.” (S, F, Batch 4).

Colleagues provided valuable support by acting as discussion partners and providing space to share concerns. They offer encouragement, appreciation, and mutual understanding to help navigate academic challenges.

“Among peers in the same study program, there is a strong culture of mutual support. For instance, when I struggle to access books or journal articles, I can seek assistance from my classmates, who are always willing to help. Additionally, having senior students provides an extra source of encouragement. They often offer motivational words such as ‘Stay motivated, you can do it!’ which further inspires us.” (F, M, Batch 6)

Families and partners provide support through prayer, encouragement, and appreciation.

“The social support I receive from my parents is often through prayers. For example, my parents would say, ‘I pray for the best for you,’ which provides me with a sense of encouragement and emotional support.” (F, M, Batch 6)

Program managers provide psychosocial support through policies and program implementation that facilitate the success of fast-track scholarship awardees.

“In this mathematics program, the laboratory is considered relatively accessible since we use software that can be monitored remotely. Additionally, I find the program administrators to be cooperative, and the university provides adequate facilities to support our learning and research needs”. (S, F, Batch 4).

Mixed-method analysis

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings provided a more comprehensive understanding of students’ well-being. Quantitative results highlighted the role of social support coping (GS), emotion regulation coping (SE), and problem-focused coping. Qualitative themes confirmed, expanded, and in some cases contradicted these findings. Overall, the integration produced one confirmed, one discordant, and one expanded result. Table 4 presents the joint display of these integrated findings.

Table 4

Joint display depicting predictors of well-being

Discussion

This study explored the challenges that PMDSU awardees face in a fast-track doctorate program, their coping strategies, and how sociodemographic factors and coping self-efficacy (CSE) influence well-being. The findings reveal a complex interplay between these challenges, coping strategies, and well-being. Doctoral students often experience high attrition rates and significant stress, with personal, academic, and career development difficulties contributing to delays (Berry et al., 2023; Stevens et al., 2023). This study identified key challenges in research processes, supervisor relationships, program structures, and self-management. Financial struggles also impact students’ academic performance (Bomer et al., 2021). Supervisory feedback plays a crucial role in doctoral progress (Carless et al., 2024; Yang, 2023), yet students face challenges related to high expectations and demanding schedules (Can, Walker, 2011). Effective self-regulation enhances learning, performance, motivation (Li et al., 2023; Theobald, 2021), and well-being (Rodríguez et al., 2022), but some fast-track students struggle with self-management and prioritising tasks.

Furthermore, the qualitative insight identified various coping strategies used by awardees, categorised into problem-focused, emotion-focused, support-seeking, and maladaptive coping strategies. Problem-focused coping involves addressing issues directly, making problem-solving plans, and seeking social support (Lazarus, Folkman, 1984). It also includes active coping, planning, restraint, and engaging in alternative activities. Active coping entails organising tasks and seeking peer discussions, whereas emotion-focused strategies involve leisure activities and religious coping (Qidwai et al., 2009). Additionally, psychosocial support from supervisors, peers, and families plays a significant role in fostering persistence and well-being (Byrom et al., 2022; Chaudhry et al., 2024).

Earning a PhD requires high levels of well-being, as poor well-being can negatively impact academic progress, professional development, research productivity, and personal life (Schmidt, Hansson, 2018). Maintaining well-being is crucial for awardees to complete their studies successfully.

SWB, which includes life satisfaction, positive emotions, and minimal distress, plays a vital role in doctoral success (Diener et al., 2018). While academic and career satisfaction contribute to SWB, stress necessitates effective coping strategies. This study revealed gender differences in negative affect and affect balance, with no differences in other variables. Research suggests that men report greater life satisfaction than women do (Blanchflower, Bryson, 2024; Montgomery, 2022), although the findings remain inconsistent. Although no gender differences emerged in positive affect, women reported greater negative affect, which is consistent with global trends (Blanchflower, Bryson, 2024). These disparities may stem from gender inequality, social expectations, and cultural norms (Batz-Barbarich et al., 2018).

The findings also indicate that coping self-efficacy (CSE) is positively correlated with life satisfaction and positive affect but negatively correlated with negative affect and affect balance. Getting social support (GS) was a strong predictor of both the cognitive and affective components of SWB, highlighting the importance of close relationships. Meanwhile, stopping unpleasant emotional and thought coping (SE) was a predictor only for affective components of SWB.

The qualitative insight provides nuanced illustrations of the coping strategies employed by participants to sustain their well-being in the demanding context of a fast-track doctoral program. Emotion regulation strategies — such as acceptance of one’s circumstances, spiritual practices, emotional expression, and self-encouragement — were frequently described as effective means to alleviate distress and foster positive emotions. Equally important, the breadth of social support underpinning GS coping was evident across multiple sources: supervisors offered open discussions and recognition of achievements; colleagues provided encouragement, appreciation, and mutual understanding to navigate academic challenges; families and partners contributed through prayers, motivation, and affirmation; and program managers facilitated academic progress through supportive policies and program implementation. Together, these strategies demonstrate how both SE and GS are enacted in daily academic life, reinforcing their significance in maintaining well-being.

These results are consistent with previous research showing that higher coping self-efficacy is associated with greater subjective well-being (Saeed et al., 2024). Additionally, research conducted in France underscores the critical role of familial support in fostering subjective well-being (Leung et al., 2020). Moreover, poor well-being has been shown to adversely affect research productivity, personal life, and elevate mental health risks (Larivière, 2012). Given the widespread mental distress among doctoral students, it is crucial to implement interventions aimed at assisting those with low subjective well-being to safeguard both their mental health and academic performance.

The findings of this study extend Lazarus’s transactional model of stress and coping by providing empirical evidence that effective coping not only mitigates the negative impact of stress but also serves as a predictor of subjective well-being. This suggests that when individuals possess strong coping self-efficacy, they are more likely to regulate emotions effectively, utilize adaptive coping strategies, and consequently maintain higher levels of well-being despite experiencing stress.

Conclusions

This study examined the well-being of Indonesian fast-track scholarship awardees, highlighting the academic, interpersonal, and institutional challenges they face. The findings emphasise the critical role of coping strategies, particularly social support, in sustaining their well-being and academic performance despite these difficulties.

Coping self-efficacy, especially the ability to seek social support, emerged as a consistent predictor of both cognitive and affective well-being. Qualitative findings reinforced the importance of supervisory support, peer networks, and self-regulation in navigating the demands of the program.

These results underscore the need for institutional policies that promote mental health and enhance support systems in accelerated doctoral pathways. Future research should consider broader samples for other fast-track programs, longitudinal designs, and institutional factors influencing well-being.

Future research should explore longitudinal patterns of well-being across program stages, include larger and more diverse samples, and investigate the role of institutional culture and structural barriers. Additionally, it may be useful to design and test targeted psychological interventions tailored to fast-track students’ specific needs.

Limitations of this study include potential issues in generalizability due to the sample being limited to PMDSU awardees from specific universities and cohorts, and the reliance on self-report data. Limited access to participants due to the intense academic schedule and program distribution may also have constrained data diversity.

1. Akhtar, H. (2019). Evaluasi properti psikometris dan perbandingan model pengukuran konstruk subjective well-being. Jurnal Psikologi, 18(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.14710/jp.18.1.29-40
2. Batz-Barbarich, C., Tay, L., Kuykendall, L., Cheung, H.K. (2018). A meta-analysis of gender differences in subjective well-being: Estimating effect sizes and associations with gender inequality. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1491–1503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774796
3. Berry, C., Niven, J.E., Hazell, C.M. (2023). Predictors of UK postgraduate researcher attendance behaviours and mental health-related attrition intention. Current Psychology, 42(34), 30521–30534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04055-1
4. Blanchflower, D., Bryson, A. (2024). The Gender Well-Being Gap. Social Indicators Research, 173(3), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03334-7
5. Blanchflower, D.G., Bryson, A. (2024). The female happiness paradox. Journal of Population Economics, 37(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-024-00981-5
6. Bomer, A., Liu, X., Irungu, W.R., Wanjiru, W.A. (2021). How is academic performance affected by delay in student loan disbursement in Kenyan Universities? A Case Study of Kenyatta University. Higher Education Studies, 11(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v11n1p121
7. Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Byrom, N.C., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A., Hughes, G. (2022). Predicting stress and mental wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal of Mental Health, 31(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020.1818196
9. Can, G., Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 508–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1
10. Carless, D., Jung, J., Li, Y. (2024). Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: towards the enactment of authentic feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888
11. Chaudhry, S., Tandon, A., Shinde, S., Bhattacharya, A. (2024). Student psychological well-being in higher education: The role of internal team environment, institutional, friends and family support and academic engagement. PLOS ONE, 19(1), e0297508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297508
12. Chunhong, H., Jingjing, D., Huan, H., Peiyao, Z., Xiaona, Z., Xiaowen, Y., Aiming, Z. (2025). A cross-sectional study of the current status of psychological health and its correlation with academic performance in medical students: taking medical students in a medical university in China as examples. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1496248. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1496248
13. Creswell, J.W., Inoue, M. (2024). A process for conducting mixed methods data analysis. Journal of General and Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.736
14. Diener, E., Oishi, S., Tay, L. (2018). Handbook of Well-being. DEF Publishers. https://doi.org/nobasholar.com
15. (2023). Beasiswa PMDSU, Mencetak Generasi Cerdas Berkarakter untuk Indonesia Maju – Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. https://dikti.kemdikbud.go.id/kabar-dikti/kabar/beasiswa-pmdsu-mencetak-generasi-cerdas-berkarakter-untuk-indonesia-maju/
16. Hendriani, W. (2017). Adaptasi positif pada resiliensi akademik mahasiswa doktoral. HUMANITAS, 14(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v14i1.5696
17. ⁠Kaya, F., Odacı, H. (2024). Subjective well-being: Self-forgiveness, coping self-efficacy, mindfulness, and the role of resilience? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 52(4), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2024.2350400
18. Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics, 90(2), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0495-6
19. Lazarus, R., Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. In Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer Publishing Company. https://books.google.com/books/about/Stress_Appraisal_and_Coping.html?hl=id&id=i-ySQQuUpr8C
20. Lemée, C., Pierre, F., Boisselier, J., Guillard, M., Wagner, V. (2020). How can we help PhD students cope with mental health issues and drop-out? An extensive analysis of discourse. Research Square Preprint, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-87359/v1
21. Leung, Y.K., Mukerjee, J., Thurik, R. (2020). The role of family support in work-family balance and subjective well-being of SME owners. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(1), 130–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1659675
22. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008
23. Li, Z., Huang, J., Hussain, S., Shu, T. (2023). How do anxiety and stress impact the performance of Chinese doctoral students through self-regulated learning?—A multi-group analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 985379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.985379
24. Luberto, C.M., Cotton, S., McLeish, A.C., Mingione, C.J., O’Bryan, E.M. (2014). Mindfulness Skills and Emotion Regulation: The Mediating Role of Coping Self-Efficacy. Mindfulness, 5(4), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12671-012-0190-6/METRICS
25. McDowall, A., Ramos, F. (2024). Preparation for doctoral research: a narrative review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(4), 1101–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00630-y
26. Montgomery, M. (2022). Reversing the gender gap in happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 196, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.01.006
27. ⁠⁠Ngooi, B., Wong, S., Chen, J., Koh, V. (2022). Exploring the use of activity-based group therapy in increasing self-efficacy and subjective well-being in acute mental health. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 35, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/15691861221075798
28. Nurhidayah, R.D.K. (2021). Hubungan coping self-efficacy dengan strategi coping stress pada mahasiswa universitas padjadjaran yang menempuh skripsi. Universitas Padjadjaran.
29. Qidwai, W., Tabassum, R., Hanif, R., Khan, F.H. (2009). Belief in prayers and its role in healing among family practice patients visiting a teaching hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(2), 182–189.
30. Rizal, S., Puruhito, Elfindri, Nugroho, W.S., Ahza, A.B., Subekti, A., Lakitan, B., Soemardi, B.W., Irianto, S., Mart, T., Ikhwan, M. (2020). The correlation between supervisor’s h-index and the number of PMDSU student’s publications. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1460/1/012048
31. Rodríguez, S., González-Suárez, R., Vieites, T., Piñeiro, I., Díaz-Freire, F.M. (2022). Self-Regulation and Students Well-Being: A Systematic Review 2010–2020. Sustainability, 14(4), 2346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042346
32. Roos, L., Löfström, E., Remmik, M. (2021). Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16, 211–236. https://doi.org/10.28945/4738
33. Rosenbaum, D., Int-Veen, I., Rubel, J., Laicher, H., Kroczek, A., Lawyer, G., Fallgatter, A.J., Ehlis, A.C. (2022). Associations of Different Emotion Regulation Strategies with Coping-Efficacy, Rumination and Stress. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 46(5), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10608-022-10307-Y/TABLES/4
34. Saeed, S., Ahmad, S., Muhammad, H. (2024). Analyzing the Direct and Indirect Effects of Coping Self-Efficacy on Well-Being via Quality of Life : Coping Self-Efficacy’s Impact on Well-Being. Pakistan Journal of Health Sciences, 5(4), 07–12. https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v5i04.1349
35. Schmidt, M., Hansson, E. (2018). Doctoral students’ well-being: a literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2018.1508171
36. Shamsi, A.F., Osam, U.V. (2022). Challenges and Support in Article Publication: Perspectives of Non-Native English Speaking Doctoral Students in a “Publish or No Degree” Context. Sage Open, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221095021
37. Stevens, S.M., Ruberton, P.M., Smyth, J.M., Cohen, G.L., Purdie Greenaway, V., Cook, J.E. (2023). A latent class analysis approach to the identification of doctoral students at risk of attrition. PLOS ONE, 18(1), e0280325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280325
38. Theobald, M. (2021). Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66, 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101976
39. Yang, M. (2023). Supervisory feedback, reflection, and academic discourse socialization: Insights from an L2 doctoral student’s paper writing experience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62, 101215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101215
40. Zhang, F., Litson, K., Feldon, D.F. (2022). Social predictors of doctoral student mental health and well-being. PLOS ONE, 17(9), e0274273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274273