Predictors of depressive symptoms in college students: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Abstract
Background To explore predictors of depressive symptoms in college students. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the predictors of depressive symptoms. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Springerlink, EBSCOhost, Cochrane review, PsycINFO, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Weipu database and Wanfang database were searched for cohort or longitudinal studies. Stata version 13.1 was used for statistical meta-analysis. Results Among 30 cohort studies, 24 studies covering 25,154 college students with the NOS of 6 and over were selected for systematic review and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The predictors of depressive symptoms in college students were gender, baseline depression, neuroticism or psychoticism, negative automatic thoughts or negative rumination, dysfunctional attitude, childhood abuse, sex abuse, and stressful life events. The combined risk ratios and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of each previous predictors were 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.21), 1.28 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.45), 1.25 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.45), 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01,1.05), 1.17 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.29), 1.05(95% CI: 1.02,1.08), 1.01 (95% CI: 1.00,1.02), and 1.16 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.27), respectively. Perceived social support and family function did not displayed significant predictive effects. Funnel plots showed that publication bias was possible. Limitations Screening tools for depressive symptoms do not have the power or specificity of the gold standard measures for dep…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The finding that more general negative beliefs were associated with more unhelpful responses, which in turn were associated with more depression/anxiety, is consistent with findings from general population studies.
“This is consistent with findings from general population studies (eg. Liu et al., 2019).”
From Cognitive and behavioural factors contributing to distress in LGBTQ+students: a prospective mediation study. (2022) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 205
- Authors
- Liu, Y., Zhang, N., Bao, G., Huang, Y., Ji, B., Wu, Y., Liu, C., & Li, G.
- Affiliations
- Jining Medical University (CN)
- Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Yan
- Ji, Bingyuan
- Li, Gongying
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 244
- Pages
- 196-208
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2897661420
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 2.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation Cultivation Project of Jining Medical University (JYP201701)
- the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2011HM023)
- the National Natural Science Fund (81571334)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- depressive symptoms, university students, risk factors, gender differences, neuroticism, psychoticism, negative automatic thoughts, rumination, dysfunctional attitudes, childhood abuse, sexual abuse, life events, perceived social support, family functions, depression screening tools, publication bias, mental health education, mental health awareness campaigns
- MeSH terms
- China, Depression, Family, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Risk Factors, Social Support, Students, Universities, Cohort Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
