HMN 2026: How Nearly one in three early-career researchers report elevated psychological distress

Nearly one in three early-career researchers (ECRs) report elevated psychological distress, according to the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis to date on mental health among ECRs. Researchers from the University of Vienna synthesized evidence from almost 230 independent samples across nearly 150 studies, comprising close to 140,000 ECRs, to estimate the prevalence and severity of mental health problems in this population. The findings were published in Nature Human Behaviour.

Despite growing attention to mental health in academia, it has remained unclear how widespread psychological distress is among ECRs, how severe it is on average, and which factors may help explain it. In their current study, Aljoscha Dreisoerner, Vanessa Goetz, David Frohnmayer, Ulrich Tran, Martin Voracek and Urs Nater from the University of Vienna addressed these questions in a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study emerged from a collaboration between the Department of Clinical and Health Psychology and the Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology at the University of Vienna.

To this end, the team conducted a meta-analysis of data from almost 230 independent samples and nearly 150 studies, comprising almost 140,000 ECRs and covering a broad range of mental health problems and symptoms. The meta-analysis statistically synthesizes the findings of many individual studies to provide a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of psychological distress among ECRs.

The results show that nearly one in three ECRs report elevated psychological distress (29.9%), including elevated depressive symptoms in 29.8%, elevated anxiety symptoms in 29.7%, alcohol-related problems in 22.9%, and suicidal ideation in 18.8% of ECRs. The prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms was approximately two to three times higher, and that of anxiety symptoms three to five times higher, than in age-matched general population samples.

Mental health problems were similar across academic disciplines, genders, and career stages

Demographic and individual factors showed limited associations with the prevalence and severity of psychological distress. In other words, mental health problems were remarkably similar across academic disciplines, genders, career stages and other individual factors.

“The findings suggest that psychological distress among ECRs is not a phenomenon limited to specific groups,” said study author Aljoscha Dreisoerner from the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Vienna. “Rather, we see a broad pattern of mental health problems that is evident across many areas of academia.”

Results point to the role of systemic factors in mental health issues among ECRs

Taken together, the findings suggest that the high levels of psychological distress among ECRs are also linked to structural conditions in academia. Many ECRs work in an environment shaped by fixed-term contracts, uncertain career paths and strong publication pressure. This is compounded by intense competition for funding, publications and the few permanent positions available.

At the same time, awareness of the importance of researchers’ mental health is growing. This is an important development, but it is not enough on its own. “Structural changes are much needed,” said principal investigator Urs Nater. “These include more stable career paths, greater predictability for midlevel academic staff, and regular monitoring of mental health at universities.”

Overall, the results of the meta-analysis point to the role of systemic factors in poor mental health outcomes in academia and emphasize the need for structural reforms and the implementation of evidence-based support systems for ECRs.

for information purposes only.