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

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.