Cited by 205Student Stress and CopingDigital Mental Health InterventionsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Supporting mental health and wellbeing of university and college students: A systematic review of review-level evidence of interventions

Open access

Abstract

Aims: The review of reviews had three aims: (i) to synthesize the available evidence on interventions to improve college and university students’ mental health and wellbeing; (ii) to identify the effectiveness of interventions, and (iii) to highlight gaps in the evidence base for future study. Methods: Electronic database searches were conducted to identify reviews in English from high-income OECD countries published between 1999 and 2020. All review-level empirical studies involving post-secondary students attending colleges of further education or universities that examined interventions to improve general mental health and wellbeing were included. Articles were critically appraised using an amended version of the AMSTAR 2 tool. Evidence from the included reviews were narratively synthesized and organised by intervention types. Results: Twenty-seven reviews met the review of reviews inclusion criteria. The quality of the included reviews varied considerably. Intervention types identified included: mindfulness-based interventions, psychological interventions, psychoeducation interventions, recreation programmes, relaxation interventions, setting-based interventions, and stress management/reduction interventions. There was evidence that mindfulness-based interventions, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and interventions delivered via technology were effective when compared to a passive control. Some evidence suggested that the effects of CBT-related interventions are sustained over time. Psychoeducation interventions do not appear to be as effective as other forms of intervention, with its effects not enduring over time. Conclusions: The review of reviews located a sizeable body of evidence on specific interventions such as mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural interventions. The evidence suggests that these interventions can effectively reduce common mental health difficulties in the higher education student body. Gaps and limitations in the reviews and the underlying body of evidence have been identified. These include a notable gap in the existing body of review-level evidence on setting-based interventions, acceptance and commitment training, and interventions for students attending colleges in UK settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0266725

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 55 references

8 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Pennington A, Watkins M, Bagnall AM, South J, Corcoran R. A systematic review of evidence on the impacts of joint decision-making on community wellbeing. London; 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–183 of 183

Metadata

Authors
Worsley, J. D., Pennington, A., & Corcoran, R.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Worsley, Joanne Deborah
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2022-07-29
Volume
17
Issue
7
Pages
e0266725
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4288703165
Cited by
205
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 5
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and partners
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
student mental health, student well-being, university students, mental health interventions, mindfulness-based interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, relaxation intervention, stress management, technology-based interventions, intervention effectiveness, evidence gaps, acceptance and commitment training
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health, Students, Universities, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Mindfulness

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