Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42249456›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2026

It may be helpful, but not for me: a qualitative study of the perceived affordances of a mental health education and counseling center among students at a key university in China.

Xiaofang Jin, Furong Lian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xiaofang JinSchool of Philosophy and Sociology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. jinxf@lzu.edu.cn.
Furong LianSchool of Philosophy and Sociology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe students from key universities face a higher risk of depression and anxiety than those from non-key universities. However, the utilization rate of on-campus counseling services remains very low. Working from the theory of perceived affordances, this study investigates the reasons why some college students with emotional distress at a Chinese key university avoid using the provided on-campus psychological counseling services.

methodsThis study employed Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis method to code and extract themes from the texts obtained through in-depth interviews. It was conducted at a key Chinese university, where 13 participants were recruited using purposive sampling and took part in interviews lasting between 30 min and two hours.

resultsThe study revealed that perceived affordances of the campus mental health education and counseling center (MHECC) among this group of college students exhibited three characteristics: surveillant services, counseling without empathy, and cautious peer support.

conclusionsAlthough these negative perceived affordances of the MHECC may be inconsistent with its real affordances, they led this group of college students to make a decision to refuse help-seeking without accessing the counseling services. To enhance the usability of the MHECC, the perceived information regarding the Center's affordances should be optimized based on college students' experiences and cultural backgrounds.

Indexed as

CounselingHealth EducationMental HealthMental Health ServicesStudentsAdolescentAdultChinaFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchUniversitiesYoung AdultChinaKey universityMental health education and counseling centerPerceived affordanceQualitative

Identifiers

PMID42249456
PMCPMC13480192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.