The growing recognition of mental health problems among students in higher education as a societal challenge highlights the need of surveillance systems to monitor their prevalence and the investigation of their underlying determinants and mechanisms to develop effective interventions. This article provides suggestions on both content and methodology for future research.Methodological adjustments may enhance the monitoring of the high and growing prevalence of mental health problems among students in higher education. Most evidence on the prevalence of mental health problems among students relies on self-report questionnaires, which, while valuable for tracking population health, lack specificity for clinical diagnoses. Distinguishing between the prevalence of symptoms and actual mental disorders is crucial, and investigating positive mental health may be considered. Recruitment strategies, often reliant on surveys, may introduce participation bias, emphasizing the importance of representative samples over sample size. The use of register data remains uncommon, presenting challenges but offering methodological advantages.Mental health is influenced by a multitude of interacting determinants at multiple layers. Inclusive research on under-represented groups is crucial. Health behaviors and social life may be investigated together with interventions to facilitate self-care practices. The student environment, mirroring workplaces, presents shared mental health challenges. Interventions, typically individual-focused, face challenges in scaling due to increasing demand. Moving from individual-focused to population-based research may provide broader scale targets for interventions.In conclusion, surveillance systems to monitor students’ mental health, a comprehensive investigation of its determinants, and shifting to population-based research are essential steps in addressing mental health problems among students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fabio Porru (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: