Interventions in Chinese Undergraduate Students’ Mental Health: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over 30% of university students from 8 countries were afflicted with mental distress according to a World Health Organization survey. Undergraduate students in increasing numbers in China have also been reported to suffer from different mental problems. Various psychological distresses significantly impact their academic and daily life, thereby causing role impairments and unsatisfactory academic achievements. While the prevalence of, diverse underlying factors for, and interventions of social support in college students' mental health have extensively been investigated in China, there is no study exclusively focusing on the impact of interventions on their psychological well-being. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize the interventions in the mental health concerns of Chinese undergraduate students studying in China reported in the literature to inform educational authorities, college and university management, students' affairs counselors, and mental health providers. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and reported the research findings of previous studies according to the protocol of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 statement. First, based on the predefined search strategy, keyword searches were performed in the PubMed and ProQuest databases to retrieve relevant studies. Subsequently, we screened the candidate articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, we analyzed the included papers for qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 675 studies from the PubMed and ProQuest databases using the search strategy on March 15, 2022. Among these candidate studies, 15 that were not written in English, 76 duplicates, and 149 studies of other document types were removed before screening. An additional 313 studies were excluded in the screening process, with 73 articles ruled out for being not relevant to interventions, not related to mental health, or not focused on undergraduate students in the full-text review. As a result, 49 papers were eligible and included in this systematic review. In the qualitative synthesis, we divided the interventions reported in the selected studies into two categories: (1) social support from government authorities, university authorities, students' affairs counselors and teachers, family members, health care authorities and professionals, and the media (various online platforms), and (2) various coping strategies adopted by undergraduate students themselves. We identified further research on mental health interventions that may be delivered by digital medical platforms, conversational agents (eg, chatbots), and researchers. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first systematic review of interventions to address the mental health concerns of Chinese undergraduate students studying in China. The categorization of reported interventions and the identification of new intervention channels can effectively inform stakeholders. Interventions for undergraduate students' mental health is a research topic worth further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".