For data analysis, 16 articles were carefully reviewed and evaluated using a thematic synthesis approach, that involved systematically identifying recurring patterns and themes across studies to generate a comprehensive understanding of the data (Thomas & Harden, 2008), within the literature review framework. Data were extracted based on study characteristics, (e.g., country, data collection setting, participants’ level of study, sample size with corresponding response rates, study designs), and predefined research questions which were categorized into three primary domains: (a) factors impacting student-supervisor relationship; (b) challenges faced by students related to mental health; and (c) effects of these relationships on students' well-being.

Thematic analysis was applied to identify recurring patterns and themes across the selected research studies. For qualitative studies, an inductive approach was used to develop themes based on the focus of each research question while descriptive synthesis was employed for quantitative studies where numerical findings were summarized and integrated to support theme development. Data extraction and organization were conducted using an Excel spreadsheet, where data was populated into a structured grid format. This included study characteristics, key findings, and thematic categories, providing a robust framework for identifying and synthesizing patterns. Review-based studies contributed broader perspectives and recurring patterns, while mixed-method studies offered integrated insights that bridged qualitative and quantitative evidence.

The extracted data was then synthesized into sub themes under each domain. For example, under factors, themes such as supervisor support, communication, power dynamics, cultural sensitivity, financial support, and supervisor expertise emerged. Challenges within the student-supervisor relationship included communication and expectations, lack of supervisor support, power dynamics and professional boundaries. Effects such as emotional and psychological outcomes, as well as academic productivity and satisfaction were mapped to illustrate the relationship between supervisory practices and students’ mental health outcomes. These sub-themes were iteratively refined through cross-referencing across all study types to ensure consistency and coherence. This approach ensured a systematic and transparent synthesis of the evidence, providing a comprehensive understanding of the student-supervisor relationship and its impact on graduate students' mental health.

The studies characteristics analyzed in this review included works published between 2015 and 2023 across, various academic disciplines and geographical locations. Among the studies, seven focused on students enrolled in PhD programs; eight involved a combination of master’s and PhD participants, with only one focusing exclusively on students at the master's level. The geographical distribution of these studies included four in the UK, three in South Africa, two in Australia, and one from each of the following countries: Canada, Pakistan, China, Belgium, Iran, New Zealand, and Vietnam. All the studies were published in English. In terms of data collection procedures, nine studies distributed online surveys to participants via email, with one of these also incorporating focus group discussions alongside online data collection. Two studies were systematic reviews, including rapid and literature reviews on the mental health of graduate students. These reviews included the student-supervisor relationship as one component of the analysis. Three studies collected data through interviews, and one of these also included field notes. Two studies were identified as autoethnography and case studies, respectively. Data in twelve studies were primarily collected from students, but supervisors were also part of the sample in four studies. Participant response rates varied from 11% to 96%, with six studies not reporting response rates. Sample sizes ranged from 4 to 6,758 participants. Various methods were employed across the studies to assess the impact of the student-supervisor relationship on graduate students' mental health. Six studies adopted qualitative methods, five utilized quantitative methods, three employed mixed methods, and two conducted reviews.

During the literature review process, several themes began to appear regarding the mental health factors in student and supervisor relationships, namely (a) supervisor support, (b) communication, (c) power dynamics, (d) cultural sensitivity, (e) financial support, and (f) supervisor expertise.

The student-supervisor relationship is marked by a complex power dynamic that is significantly affected by imbalances in power. This particular feature was emphasized in six out of the 16 studies; specifically analyzed the impact of power imbalances on the mental health of students.

Supervisors have broad knowledge and authority over resources, whereas students depend on them for learning and growth. The existence of such a difference could occasionally provide difficulties in establishing and upholding professional and supportive limits, which are crucial for fostering a successful working relationship (Bekkouche et al., 2021; White et al., 2023; Zile et al., 2023).One study highlights the significance of mutual respect, open communication, and shared aims in student-supervisor interactions to address these problems and improve research quality (Cornwell et al., 2018)..

One study finds the crucial factors that contribute to a productive and satisfying supervisory relationship, encompassing qualities such as leadership, assistance, empathy, and accountability (Le et al., 2021). Another researcher emphasizes the need to establish a psychologically secure environment where students can freely share their thoughts and worries without the risk of punishment. This is especially crucial in disciplines that address delicate subjects such as disability studies. This method not only enhances the personal development of students and supervisors but also has a positive impact on the wider academic community by guaranteeing excellent research results (Gunasekera et al., 2021).

During the data extraction procedure, the presence of cultural elements in the student-supervisor relationship was observed. Three studies explicitly focused on this problem. Authors emphasize the difficulties regarding cultural sensitivity, which frequently arise due to a supervisor's inadequate awareness or comprehension of a student's cultural heritage, can significantly impact this association (Watson &Turnpenny, 2022). Similarly, one study indicates that disparities in language and socio-cultural norms between supervisors and students provide substantial obstacles to efficient communication and shared comprehension (Bekkouche et al., 2021). In addition, One another research examines the impact of diverse cultural and national backgrounds of supervisors and students on the complexity of the mentorship process (Gunasekera et al., 2021). These studies emphasize the essential importance of cultural sensitivity in fostering effective and favorable interactions between students and supervisors.

One research study highlights the lack of academic expertise among supervisors as another factor in student-supervisor relationship that impacts student mental health, particularly noting students' dissatisfaction when supervisors are unable to offer the substantial guidance expected due to insufficient expertise (Casey et al., 2022).

Figure 2 shows how often each factor was addressed within the studies chosen for this review.

Figure 2

Mental Health Challenges in Student-Supervisor Relationship

The second question of this research study focuses on the specific challenges students face regarding mental health within the student-supervisor relationship. After the data extraction, some key challenges highlighted by different studies included (a) communication and expectations, (b) lack of supervisor support, and (c) power dynamics and professional boundaries.

The most highlighted challenge faced by students during their graduate studies is the lack of communication and unclear expectations from their supervisors, as evidenced by nine studies that explore the various difficulties encountered by students in this context. One research study reports that the absence of regular, clear guidance and defined expectations from supervisors can affect necessary discussions about mental health (White et al., 2023). Similarly, another study points out students' difficulties due to the need for more direct and clear instructions, compounded by communication barriers (Bekkouche et al., 2021). One study’s authors further argue those misaligned expectations between students and their supervisors, together with communication issues, increase stress and anxiety among students (Howells et al., 2017). As discuss by Chikte and Chabilall (2016), unavailable supervisors provide more challenges for students, hindering effective interaction and guidance, thereby increasing mental health issues. Further, research highlighted structural and systemic challenges, where unclear expectations and responsibilities in thesis supervision often led to mismatches and dissatisfaction (Yousefi et al., 2015). Other authors emphasized that ineffective feedback and unprofessional supervisor behavior foster negative interactions, exacerbating uncertainty (Silinda & Brubacher, 2016; Wollast et al., 2023). This is supported by Cornwall et al. (2019) and Zile et al. (2023), who note the difficulties students face when discussing mental health problems with supervisors due to fears of stigma and a perceived lack of seriousness, often because research outputs are prioritized over student well-being.

Seven out of the 16 studies reviewed during the data extraction process mention the lack of supervisor support as a significant challenge to students' mental health. Studies state that one root cause of the lack of supportiveness by supervisors is their unavailability (Casey et al., 2022; Chikte & Chabilall, 2016) which directly affecting student-supervisor interactions, also fails the autonomy and motivation in students. They also noted that inadequate support from supervisors in securing financial resources further places financial burdens on students, greatly affecting their mental and academic state (Wollast et al., 2023). One study discusses conflicts between co-supervisors which further complicates the support that students receive from their supervisors (Cornwall et al., 2019). Other authors demonstrate how students with disabilities navigate the difficult balance between seeking equal treatment and requiring specific accommodations, often against a background of stigma and discrimination (Vergunst & Swartz, 2022). Some researchers also highlight the students' mental health issues that become critical when they feel isolated and unsupported due to uncertain, unsupportive relationships with their supervisors (Le et al., 2021; Zile et al., 2023).

Some research studies also state the power imbalances as a key mental health challenge for students (White et al., 2023; Watson & Turnpenny, 2022). One research study highlighted that supervisors often do not support students' mental health due to lack of time and pressures from various institutional power structures. Such practices can erode students' psychological security and safety due to fear of not meeting supervisors' expectations (Gunasekera et al., 2021). Researchers also discuss non-professional relationships, such as inappropriate sexual relationships and friendships that might develop into ongoing intimacy or support that is not appropriate for an academic setting. They also express concerns that supervisors might end up doing too much work for students, such as writing large portions of their theses or grant proposals, which could further blur the lines between academic integrity and independence (Bekkouche et al., 2021).

Figure 3 shows how often each challenge was addressed within the studies chosen for this review.

Figure 3

The effects of challenges in the supervisor-student relationship on students’ mental health include a broad range of negative emotional states and academic consequences. It is divided into two significant effects. Such as emotional and psychological effects, and impact on academic productivity and satisfaction.

This review extracted studies on how student supervisor relationships can impact students’ mental health. Nine research studies explored the emotional and psychological effects that students go through in their relationships with their supervisors. One study finds that students often feel distressed and unsatisfied with their supervisors (Vergunst & Swartz, 2022). Other studies found that students experienced loneliness and lack of support leading to difficulties in feeling connected with society (Bekkouche et al., 2021; Casey et al., 2022). One research highlighted how a sense of Un belongingness contributes to student stress and anxiety (Zile et al., 2023). One study further added that the negative effects of stress, isolation, and dissatisfaction among students reduce their motivation, satisfaction, and overall well-being (Cornwall et al., 2019).

Studies reported that a supervisor's availability for emotional support, along with the positive relationship, is imperative to lower such stress and anxiety in students (Le et al., 2021; Watson & Turnpenny, 2022). The study by Wollast et al. (2023) established that female doctoral researcher experienced more negativity and less positivity than male students in relationships with their supervisors, and supervisors' graduate practices can improve this relationship. This makes students more resilient and focused, thereby reducing anxiety and stress (Howells et al., 2017).

During data extraction for this review, 10 out of 16 studies discussed the effects of mental health challenges on students' academic performance. One study found that feelings of isolation and stress within student-supervisor relationship hinder the students' research and academics abilities. It further discusses the role of supervisor's emotional intelligence and ability to create a psychologically safe environment can either empower students, help them excel, or disempower them, increasing their stress levels (Zile et al., 2023).

Some authors observed increased emotional support from supervisors resulted in improved academic performance (Gunasekera et al., 2021; Le et al., 2021). This support helps students to enhance confidence and fosters their satisfaction, and overall mental health (Cornwall et al., 2019). Research has also shown that establishing strong supervisory connections by expressing gratitude and valuing the students’ perspectives can lead to improved academic engagement and resilience. This, in turn, enhances learning outcomes and reduces burnout. (Howells et al., 2017; Fatima and Malik, 2019; Silinda and Brubacher, 2016).

Furthermore, discouragement might result in a lack of critical thinking and reflective thinking, leading to stress, potential burnout, and increased rates of discontinuation. One research study found that, if students have negative experiences with their supervisors, it may cause them to reconsider whether they want to continue their studies (Chikte & Chabilall, 2016). This highlights the significance of having a positive, supportive, and clear relationship with supervisors to complete academic pursuits.

Figure 4

The limitations of this literature review largely derive from the methodological decisions typical of narrative and integrative reviews, which, by design, involve certain compromises relative to full systematic reviews. Although the literature review approach offers efficiency, it may limit the depth and comprehensiveness typically associated with traditional systematic reviews. Furthermore, the considerable variability in response rates and sample sizes across the studies could affect the reliability and representativeness of the findings. For instance, studies with low response rates are susceptible to nonresponse bias, potentially compromising the validity of the results. This variation, combined with the predominant focus on the student perspective, may skew the understanding of the complexities within the supervisory relationship.

Additionally, restricting the analysis to peer-reviewed articles published in English may introduce language and publication bias, potentially neglecting important research available in other languages or through non-traditional platforms. This limitation could result in a less comprehensive understanding of the student-supervisor relationship and its impact on mental health. Furthermore, the study's focus on graduate students may constrain the generalizability of the findings to other academic levels or contexts. The specific challenges and experiences of graduate students, while valuable, may not fully capture the dynamics present at the undergraduate or postdoctoral stages.

Lastly, although the search strategy was thorough within the specified databases, it might have missed relevant studies due to the choice of databases or the specific search terms used. This could lead to selection bias, where only certain types of studies or outcomes are represented, skewing the overall findings.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Huma Khalid: Conceptualization (lead); Methodology (lead); Formal analysis (lead); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review and editing (equal). Sandra Della Porta: Writing – original draft (supporting), Methodology (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Writing – review and editing (equal).

Sandra Della Porta is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Brock University, Ontario, Canada. Her research centers on social power in early childhood — how children understand, use, and negotiate power in family, peer, and educational contexts. She is especially interested in how children’s agencies, equity, and multiliteracy are intertwined with power dynamics, and explores these through naturalistic observation and reflexive, storytelling approaches. She also embeds Indigenous pedagogy and culturally responsive practices in her work, seeking to translate knowledge into practice in early learning settings.

Affiliation details: Brock University, Ontario, Canada; sdellaporta@brocku.ca