ArticleBMC public health2025
Analysis of university students' perception of mental health.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The mental health of university students has become an increasingly important public health issue, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the high prevalence of mental illness, little is known about how students themselves perceive their mental health and which contextual and institutional factors influence these perceptions. This study examined mental health perceptions among university students in the Czech Republic, focusing on their views of the urban environment and preferred forms of support. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 767 students from four public universities. The 15-item questionnaire covered internal experiences, social background, and institutional conditions. Data were analysed using principal component analysis (PCA) and Welch's t-test to assess gender differences. Three components initially emerged: (1) subjective mental well-being, (2) contextual and interpersonal support, and (3) institutional determinants. However, due to low internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.285), Component 2 was excluded. The final interpretation therefore focused on two dimensions: subjective self-perception of mental health and social/institutional determinants. Gender differences were statistically significant for the latter, with women scoring higher. Students most often reported workload, social media, and family relations as stressors, while they valued cultural and educational opportunities of cities. The most frequently preferred forms of support included strengthening psychological services at universities, preventive care, and easier access to professional help. The findings indicate that students' mental health perceptions are shaped by individual, social, and institutional dimensions. Public health strategies should therefore extend beyond clinical treatment, strengthen preventive and community-based approaches, address gender differences, and enhance the role of universities as key sites of early intervention.
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.