Translate and culturally adapt the Physician Self-Efficacy to Manage Emotional Challenges (PSMEC) scale into Persian, then assess the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the PSMEC (P-PSMEC) among medical students.

Methodological cross-sectional study.

Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.

A convenience sample of 237 medical students participated in the study between July and December 2024.

The main focus was on evaluating the psychometric performance of the 17-item P-PSMEC scale, particularly its intended five-factor structure, examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Secondary outcomes encompassed face validity, content validity, internal convergent validity, discriminant validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Additionally, an ordinal CFA sensitivity analysis was performed using the weighted least squares mean-adjusted and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimator.

The P-PSMEC showed acceptable face and content validity with a Scale Content Validity Index/AVE of 0.871. The main maximum likelihood-based CFA indicated good model fit: ²/df=1.415, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.041, Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=0.984 and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR)=0.021. An ordinal CFA with WLSMV produced similar results: ²=168.234, df=109, RMSEA=0.048, CFI=0.981, Tucker-Lewis Index=0.976, SRMR=0.049, with standardised loadings between 0.52 and 0.89. Evidence for internal convergent validity was supported by average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.50 and composite reliability values above 0.70. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio values were below 0.85, and maximum shared variance was lower than AVE, indicating good discriminant validity. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α=0.902), and test-retest reliability was also strong (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.901).

The P-PSMEC shows good validity and reliability for measuring self-efficacy in managing emotional challenges among Persian-speaking medical students. The results support the proposed five-factor structure, although additional multisite, longitudinal, external validation and measurement-invariance studies are necessary.

To estimate the prevalence and frequency of workplace incivility and bullying across multiple healthcare roles; compare experiences among occupational groups; examine associations with psychological symptoms (stress, anxiety and depression); assess interrelations among mistreatment dimensions (experienced workplace incivility (EWI), witnessed workplace incivility (WWI), instigated workplace incivility (IWI and experienced workplace bullying (EWB)); and evaluate associations with demographic and contextual variables.

Cross-sectional study.

Three teaching hospitals in Arak, Iran, between March and December 2023.

A stratified random sample of 550 healthcare workers was invited; 392 responded (response rate 71.3%) and 359 with complete data were included, comprising nurses, interns, residents, general practitioners and administrative staff.

Workplace incivility (Workplace Incivility Scale), workplace bullying (Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised) and psychological symptoms (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items).

The sample (N=359) was 64% female with a mean age of 32 years. Significant differences were observed across occupational groups for WWI, IWI and EWB (all p

Workplace incivility and bullying are widespread across healthcare roles, with broadly comparable exposure across clinical staff. Direct experiences of mistreatment showed the most consistent associations with psychological distress, and mistreatment dimensions appeared to operate within interconnected patterns. Addressing these issues requires system-level interventions targeting structural and cultural drivers to promote psychologically safe clinical environments.