A growing number of students in UK higher education are facing mental health and wellbeing challenges. But universities often take a deficit-based approach, focusing on treating individual symptoms rather than addressing the broader systemic or environmental factors behind student distress.
In part 1 of 2, SUMS Associate Consultant Dr Alison Oldam and Managing Consultant Helen Baird explore current university approaches to student mental health and wellbeing.
The current situation with university mental health
A House of Commons research briefing last September highlighted the stark increase in the number of students declaring a mental health condition over a 10-year period, increasing from under 1% in 2010/11 to 5.7% by 2021/22.
While very significant, multiple sources suggest that this figure is, in fact, likely to be underestimated, as surveys where students respond confidentially tend to reveal a much higher rate of reporting. For instance, analysis of the Student Academic Experiences Survey (SAES) by the Policy Institute at King’s College London and TASO (covering a 7-year period) suggests that by 2022/23, one in six students were experiencing challenges with their mental health. Different reporting mechanisms give different results but what we can robustly say is that the number of students struggling with mental health difficulties has substantially increased.
Increased numbers of students disclosing their difficulties is of course to be encouraged so that universities can provide them with the support they need. However, there is often a struggle for student support services to manage the increased demand. There are also major changes in the legal, regulatory and sectoral context, to which universities and their student support teams need to respond. This is reflected in the Mental Health Charter, Disabled Students Commitment, the EHRC guidance note after the Abrahart ruling, as well as the new OfS E6 conditions on tackling non-academic misconduct.
What we know for certain is that one size does not fit all in the provision of student support. As the TASO report highlighted, the “experiences of mental health among undergraduates are deeply unequal, with some groups much more affected than others”. Key student characteristics including gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, domicile, education and family background, paid work and source of income all impact on the experience of and reporting of mental health difficulties.
So, what does all this mean for universities?
The most common approach to supporting students among universities remains a very traditional one focused on the use of interventions to support students who are struggling. This includes:
- wellbeing interventions
- counselling sessions
- mental health advisory support
- workshops
- psychoeducation.
In most universities these services are struggling to cope with and respond to the increased numbers, as well as the challenging financial climate. There is simply no money to do more of the same. Yet we know that supporting student mental health and wellbeing is also crucial for meeting university goals around student experience, as well as improving retention and reducing attainment gaps.
Therefore, for the benefit of both the student and of their university (not forgetting of course the need to comply with legislation and regulation and sector norms and expectations) this is an area that remains crucially important. As the Taso (2023) analysis found “Students are still around 25 percentage points more likely to select mental health as the primary motivation for wanting to drop out compared with any other explanation, making it by far the most common reason given”.
Within universities, the approach to student mental health is typically based on a deficit model, focussing on identifying and addressing “problems” within individual students. Generally, this model centres around the idea that students who experience mental health challenges, such as anxiety, depression, or stress need to be “treated” and that the university support services are there to fulfil this function. This model tends to focus on diagnosis or symptoms, so by its very nature tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Inherent within this model is the focus on individual responsibility. To receive support, students must self-identify and report symptoms or challenges and learn to “cope” or “adapt” to stressors, without the university necessarily addressing the underlying systemic or environmental factors contributing to their distress (e.g. workload, assessment bunching and financial stress).
What might change that focusses on the system and organisation rather than the individual look like? Find out here in part 2!
