Study Conditions and University Students’ Mental Health during the Pandemic: Results of the COVID-19 German Student Well-Being Study (C19 GSWS)

Abstract

University students are generally vulnerable to mental health problems. This was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when students experienced decisive changes and restrictions in their academic lives. Our study aimed at (a) analysing associations between study conditions and symptoms of depression and anxiety and (b) determining the extent of use and motivation to use student counselling services. The C19 GSWS is a cross-sectional study conducted at five universities in Germany (N = 7203). Descriptive analyses and linear regression models were performed to estimate the associations between study conditions and mental health outcomes. A total of 42.4% of the students felt down, depressed, or hopeless on several days over the past 14 days. Between a third and 44.1% of the students felt burdened by their study conditions. Worse perceived study conditions were associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and anxiety. Only 7.1% indicated that they had utilised student counselling services, and female gender, enrolment in a bachelor’s programme, and having more than 1 reason for utilisation were factors associated with use. The results of our research underline the need for universities to review their study conditions and to provide targeted intervention strategies and counselling services to promote students’ mental well-being.

Depressive Symptoms Among Higher Education Students in Germany—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Most studies employed a cross-sectional design (n = 51). The sample sizes varied, ranging from n = 50 [ 45 ] to n = 7,203 participants [ 46 ], with a total of 75,107 participants and a mean sample size of 1,252 persons per study. The articles were published between 2008 and 2023, and data were gathered from 2004 to 2022.…”

“…Most studies employed a cross-sectional design (n = 51). The sample sizes varied, ranging from n = 50 [45] to n = 7,203 participants [46], with a total of 75,107 participants Among the studies, 29 focused on medical and/or dental students, while 15 publications reported data on sex-specific prevalence rates. Notably, 15 studies were conducted during Different cut-off levels were applied across these assessment instruments.…”

University Students’ Financial Situation During COVID-19 and Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms: Results of the COVID-19 German Student Well-Being Study (C19 GSWS)

“… 47 , 49 , 50 Moreover, a recent study conducted among university students 20 months after the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany reported that worse perceived study conditions were associated with poorer mental health outcomes. 51 However, this study has not considered students’ changed financial situation during the pandemic as an important social determinant of health in this context. In fact, the literature to date has rarely investigated the financial situation of students in a later phase of the COVID-19-pandemic, and if studied, changes in income were used as a proxy for assessing the financial situation, which only represents one part of students’ financial resources.…”

DataSheet1.docx

“…Most studies employed a cross-sectional design (n = 51). The sample sizes varied, ranging from n = 50 [45] to n = 7,203 participants [46], with a total of 75,107 participants Among the studies, 29 focused on medical and/or dental students, while 15 publications reported data on sex-specific prevalence rates. Notably, 15 studies were conducted during Different cut-off levels were applied across these assessment instruments.…”

“…The assessment of these publications resulted in cumulative scores that ranged from 3 to 9, with a mean score of 6.3, out of a possible 9 points. The majority of studies employed suitable sampling methods (e.g., data assessment in compulsory lectures) (65.0%), provided sufficient details regarding the characteristics of their study subjects and settings (e.g., information on age and sex of the participants) (66.7%), and maintained adequate sample sizes that ranged from 306 [9] to 7,203 participants [46] (68.3%). Of 60 studies, 96.7% used an appropriate sample frame to address the target population, which substantially mitigates the risk of overgeneralizing the findings: a minimum sample size of 305 was determined based on the calculation for prevalence studies [94,95].…”