Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction: Mental health disorders are common among higher education students and may negatively affect academic performance. Although psychological interventions are increasingly implemented in university settings, their impact on concrete academic outcomes remains insufficiently clarified. This systematic review addresses this evidence gap by examining whether psychological interventions or psychological service use are associated with objective academic outcomes among higher education students. Materials and methods: This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251015885). Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched up to 8 October 2024. The search identified 239 records, of which seven met the eligibility criteria after duplicate removal and screening. Eligible studies used quantitative designs, included higher education students, evaluated psychological interventions or psychological service use, and reported at least one academic outcome. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Due to heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and outcomes, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Most structured interventions reported favourable academic outcomes, particularly those involving mindfulness-based approaches, stress-related imagery, and anxiety-management strategies. Significant improvements were observed in semester grade point average, academic performance, and retention following several structured interventions. Retention was also significantly higher following mindfulness-based strengths practice (Fisher’s exact p = 0.019). However, findings were not uniform. One observational study of counselling service use reported comparable final grade point average but lower graduation rates among service users. Conclusions: Psychological interventions may support academic performance in higher education, although the evidence remains limited and heterogeneous. Intervention characteristics, student profiles, and mechanisms such as self-efficacy, stress regulation, and adjustment to university may influence outcomes. Further rigorous and longitudinal studies are needed.
Fialho et al. (Wed,) studied this question.