Perceived Social Support, Study-Related Stress, and Depressive Symptoms in Saudi Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study
Hussain Nuri Alali, Rawan Salem Alkhammas, Fatimah Abdullah Alessa, Khalid Jafar Alqadhib, Abdulhakim Ibrahim Alabdullah, Majd Khalid Al Dhailan, Abdullah AlmaqhawiBackground: Medical students are at high risk of psychological distress due to academic and personal pressures. This study assessed stress, depression, and associated factors among medical students, with emphasis on social support. Methods/Material: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 367 medical students at King Faisal University using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 29.0. Results: Participants were nearly equally distributed by gender (51.5% females), with a mean age of 22–23 years. The mean corrected PSS-10 score was 20.19 ± 6.21 and the mean PHQ-9 score was 9.45 ± 5.58; 48.2% screened positive for clinically significant depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). High stress and depressive symptoms were prevalent; 43.1% frequently felt nervous, 44.7% reported hopelessness, and 43.1% endorsed any thoughts of being better off dead or of self-harm on the PHQ-9 screening item. Peer support was associated with significantly lower stress (PSS: 17.77 vs. 21.25, p < 0.001) and depression scores (PHQ: 8.09 vs. 11.0, p < 0.001), and remained an independent predictor of lower odds of a positive depression screen in adjusted analysis (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83–0.96). Female and pre-clinical students showed poorer psychosocial outcomes (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Psychosocial distress is common among medical students, particularly females and pre-clinical students. Higher perceived social support, particularly peer support, was associated with lower stress and depressive symptom scores; given the cross-sectional design these associations cannot establish causation, but they support strengthening peer- and faculty-support systems within medical schools. Findings should be interpreted in light of the cross-sectional, single-centre, self-report design and a response below the pre-specified target, which limit causal inference and generalisability.