What Do We Know About Student Mental Health in UK Higher Education?: A Scoping Review of Trends, Gaps, and Research Directions (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing concern about the mental health of students in higher education institutions (HEIs) across the United Kingdom. Increasingly diverse student populations, the legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic, and variations in policies and service provision across the 4 UK nations have highlighted the need for a comprehensive understanding of student mental health. Current literature remains fragmented, with limited synthesis comparing national contexts. This protocol outlines a scoping review to systematically map the evidence base, identify key research gaps, and inform future research priorities and interventions. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to identify and map existing research on student mental health in UK HEIs. Specific objectives include exploring how student mental health is defined and measured, identifying risk factors, assessing support systems and interventions, and highlighting gaps in research across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. METHODS: This scoping review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and be reported in line with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they (1) were conducted in the United Kingdom; (2) involved students aged 16 years and older enrolled in HEIs; (3) addressed mental health-related outcomes, definitions, or interventions; and (4) were published in English from 2005 onwards. Excluded materials include gray literature not identified during database searching. A comprehensive 3-step search strategy will be used. Initially, APA PsycInfo and MEDLINE (Ovid) will be searched, followed by a broader search across Scopus, Web of Science (Core Collection), Child and Adolescent Development Studies, and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists of the included studies will be screened for additional sources. All citations will be managed using Covidence, and study selection will involve title/abstract screening and full-text review by independent reviewers. Data extraction will include information on study design, population characteristics, mental health outcomes, measures used, interventions, and key findings. Data will be presented in tabular and narrative forms and, where appropriate, descriptive content analysis will be used. RESULTS: As of April 2025, preliminary searches and pilot screenings have been completed. The full database search and data charting phase will commence in June 2025. The final synthesis, analysis, and stakeholder consultation are scheduled between September and November 2025. The full review will be completed by December 2025, with dissemination activities planned through early 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide a comprehensive overview of student mental health research within UK HEIs. It will highlight the key national differences, emerging themes, and underresearched areas, supporting more targeted, evidence-informed policy and practice. Limitations include language and gray literature exclusions. Nonetheless, the findings are expected to make a timely and meaningful contribution to research and intervention strategies in UK higher education. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/65594.
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 | 0.050 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".