ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2025
Psychological distress and mental health disparities over time between tertiary students and non-student working peers in Australia.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the Effectiveness, Adherence and Attrition of Smartphone-Based Mental Health Interventions in University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Physical exercise and risk of common mental disorders among higher education students: A national prospective study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Mental health special consideration in Victorian tertiary education applications: geographical, demographic, and socioeconomic inequities in uptake.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTertiary students have been recognised as a high-risk population for psychological distress yet, in Australia, have been overlooked in population-level surveillance, health service provision and mental health policy. This study sought to explore trends in self-reported psychological distress and general mental health of tertiary students compared to their non-student working peers in Australia from 2007 to 2022- a timeframe which spans the pre-, mid-, and immediate-post-COVID time periods.
methodsThe Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey was used as a basis for this study. Focusing on participants aged 18 to 35 from survey waves spanning 2007 to 2022 (average n = 4415 per year), participants were categorised into three groups: working only, tertiary students and working, and tertiary students only. Psychological distress and general mental health were measured using the Kessler-10 scale and the Mental Health Inventory-5, respectively. Weighted regression models compared outcomes between students and non-students.
resultsPsychological distress and poor mental health have risen among young Australians, with the sharpest increase since 2019. Tertiary students, especially those studying only, showed significantly higher distress and poorer mental health than working peers. Although adjusting for sociodemographic and socioeconomic covariates attenuated the associations, the higher distress levels in students persisted post-2019. Loneliness, long-term disabilities, and poor general health were correlates of poor mental health across all groups.
conclusionsFindings highlight the need for targeted care models for tertiary students, including enhanced campus mental health support and screening services, financial support, social connection programs, and digital health solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.