Active Psychoeducation

What is it? Active psychoeducation refers to interventions in which a trained professional teaches students about mental health and wellbeing as well as helpful strategies that improve mental health.

Evidence? There is an emerging evidence base in the higher education sector showing that active psychoeducation interventions can benefit student mental health. Though there are a large number of causal studies in the existing evidence, most have small sample sizes, show a mixed impact on outcomes, and are from international sources. More research is needed from the UK that focuses on student outcomes (such as attainment and progression) as well as mental health outcomes.

Lessons might also be learnt from reviewing the evidence of such approaches for other user groups, for example younger people (Baourda et al., 2021; Bevan Jones et al., 2018) and adults with depression (Tursi et al.; 2013). These reviews find promise that active psychoeducation approaches may have a small positive effect on mental health outcomes, but highlight diversity in the way these interventions are defined and operationalised as making it hard to generalise about impact.

What is the intervention?

Active psychoeducation refers to workshops and training programmes where a trained professional informs students about mental health. In active psychoeducation, practitioners might guide students in learning about better mental health or they might focus on raising awareness about particular mental health difficulties. The intervention often includes teaching skills that enable students to manage their mental health, such as resilience and emotion regulation. These workshops or programmes can be broadly themed such as managing wellbeing, or more specifically themed, such as managing exam stress, relationship breakups or alcohol problems. This intervention also includes programmes that equip attendees with the skills to help others such as the mental health first aid training course.

This intervention is often preventative. It can help to raise awareness, reduce stigma and signpost to other services. Psychoeducation workshops can be delivered in person and online and therefore have the benefit of reaching a large number of people. This intervention can be delivered in a one-off or drop-in format or as a longer running programme of sessions.

How effective is it?

The evidence for the effectiveness of active psychoeducation on student mental health is mixed. Though there are a large number of causal studies in the existing evidence, most have small sample sizes, and show conflicting impact on outcomes; this means that some interventions appear to reduce mental health difficulties such as depression and anxiety with small to medium effect sizes, whereas others have limited or no effect on outcomes. The majority of the sources come from outside of the UK, namely the USA. Active psychoeducation can target a range of areas, including emotion regulation, coping resources and developing strengths, each of which have a different evidence base. A summary of specific studies undertaken in an HE context is provided below.

The HE-specific evidence reported here should also be viewed in the context of a wider evidence-base on active psychoeducation interventions which have been tested with other populations. For example, Bevan Jones et al. (2018) provide a review of fifteen studies on the use of psychoeducational interventions in adolescent depression; seven targeted adolescents with depression/depressive symptoms, eight targeted adolescents ‘at risk’ e.g. with a family history of depression. Most involved family/group programmes; others included individual, school-based and online approaches. The review concluded that the evidence is still limited but shows promise of impact. It also found that the various ways in which this type of intervention is structured and evaluated, and the inconsistent definition of psychoeducation, makes it difficult to compare studies and make generalisations about this approach. Similarly, Baourda et al. (2021) provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychoeducational group interventions targeting anxiety symptoms in youths aged 18 and under. This review found evidence suggesting that psychoeducation effectively reduced anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents but that the size of effect varied substantially between studies. Looking to adult populations, Tursi et al. (2013) provide a review of 13 studies on psychoeducation for patients with depression; 10 papers evaluated in-person psychoeducation approaches and three papers evaluated long-distance approaches. The review concludes that evidence in this area is still limited but the studies identified suggest psychoeducation is effective in improving the clinical course, treatment adherence, and psychosocial functioning of depressive patients.

Emotional regulation

There is a small amount of evidence to suggest that emotion regulation interventions can support some student mental health outcomes in the short-term, with small to medium effect sizes.

Bentley et al. (2018) tested the effect of a two-hour emotion regulation session on psychology students attending a university in the USA with elevated symptoms of anxiety and depression. Participants were randomised to either receive the intervention, which addressed emotion management and adaptive emotion coping strategies, or to a control group that were offered the intervention one month later (a waitlist control design). The authors measured changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, temperament, quality of life, and emotion regulation at one-month follow-up. Though the intervention group provided feedback that the training was both highly acceptable and satisfactory, it only had a significant impact on self-reported quality of life when compared to the control group, with a small effect size.

A longer-term emotional education programme proved more effective, at least in the short-term, at a university in Spain. Schoeps, de la Barrera and Montoya-Castilla (2020) randomised 200 undergraduate students, majority women and studying health science, to receive the intervention which taught perception of emotions, emotional regulation, empathy and conflict resolution, all delivered by trained psychologists. The intervention significantly increased emotional intelligence, empathy, positive mood, satisfaction with life and positive affect at post-intervention, with small to medium effect sizes, however, these changes were not maintained at three-month follow-up.

Foster et al. (2014) conducted a RCT to evaluate an intervention targeted at first year students at a university in Australia to combat stress and social isolation. The intervention taught students, via guided-sessions using a DVD and booklet, to transform their negative emotions and take control of how they’re feeling. Those randomised to the intervention group could opt to receive an additional daily SMS service to receive advice and guidance for ten weeks. Psychological wellbeing, life satisfaction, resilience and distress levels were measured pre- and post-intervention, and only the SMS group experienced significant change in all four scales; for the non-SMS intervention group, only life satisfaction increased. However, as students opted-in to the SMS service, and therefore may have been more motivated than the other groups, it limits the ability to draw causal conclusions.

One study sought to teach emotion regulation to medical students in Germany specifically (Kötter and Niebuhr, 2016). Students were randomised to either a one-off psychoeducation seminar, the same seminar plus two-hours of individual coaching, or a control group. The seminar addressed issues such as emotional reactions toward stressors, and unconscious persistence of unprocessed negative emotions. General health, anxiety, depression, and medical school perceived stress was measured before and after the intervention took place. There was a small but significant reduction in perceived stress in the intervention groups, however, due to a small sample size and attrition in the follow-up measures, the authors chose to combine the two treatment conditions which means it is unclear whether the psychoeducation intervention alone was impactful, rather than the coaching intervention.

Coping resources and resilience

There is some evidence to suggest that interventions designed to build resilience can support some student mental health outcomes in the short-term, particularly stress and depressive symptoms, with small to moderate effect sizes.

Steinhardt and Dolbier (2008) evaluated a four-week resilience programme delivered for two hours each week during exam season. The intervention focused on transforming stress into resilience, coping in problem-focused and emotion-focused ways, taking responsibility for behaviour and creating meaningful connections. USA university students randomised to the intervention group had significantly higher resilience scores, more effective coping strategies, higher scores on protective factors (positive affect, self-esteem, self-leadership), and lower scores on symptomatology (depressive symptoms, negative affect, perceived stress) post-intervention than the waitlist control group. Dolbier, Jaggards and Steinhardt (2010) evaluated the same intervention, however, for this study students were asked to describe the most stressful event they had experienced in their life that still felt unresolved for them and report how stressful the event felt currently to them. Their stress-related growth (the positive and negative changes reported by the participants as a result of their stressful event) was measured before and after the intervention. The intervention group showed a significantly greater increase in growth over time compared to the control group, with a small to moderate effect size. Longer-term effects of the intervention were not measured in either study, and the sample was majority female.

Houston et al. (2018) conducted a RCT in the USA to evaluate a three-week resilience and coping programme, again delivered during exam season. The intervention was delivered in small groups led by trained social workers and measures of resilience and coping strategies, as well as hope, stress, anxiety and depression were assessed before and after the intervention. Intervention participants reported significantly more hope and significantly less stress and depression compared with the control, with small to moderate effect sizes. Whilst there were positive effects on other measures, including resilience, these were not significant. Students fed back on the benefits of the group element in particular, which enabled them to share and validate their own experiences.

The impact of resilience programmes on stress and depression has been replicated in Iran and Singapore respectively, showing short-term effectiveness with small effect sizes (Nikoozadeh, 2020; Games, Thompson and Barrett, 2020).

Other studies have sought to evaluate the effect of resilience interventions on students on particular courses, including Medicine and Nursing. Yusoff (2015) evaluated an intervention delivered over a four-hour session that teaches students to detect problems early, appraise and cope positively, and learn from problems. Students at a medical school in Malaysia were randomised to the intervention group or a waitlist control. Measures of stress, perceived course-related stress, depression, and coping methods were conducted at one-, eight-, 16- and 32-week follow-up. The intervention group showed a significant reduction in depression symptoms, dysfunctional coping strategies and perceived stress, and this was maintained at longer-term follow-up with small to moderate effect sizes. In a small-scale pilot RCT, Lanz (2020) evaluated the impact of a five-week resilience course on first year Nursing students at a USA university. Feedback was positive from the students in the intervention group, however, there was no significant increase in their self-reported resilience, though self-reported burnout did decrease.

Health education

Some psychoeducation interventions seek to promote health behaviours in order to positively impact mental health outcomes. Yang et al (2020) sought to evaluate a seven week instructor-led health education course which consisted of a two-hour session per week covering healthy eating, physical activity, stress reduction, health, sleep and internet addiction prevention. A large sample at a university in China were randomly allocated to the intervention group or the control group, and surveyed pre- and post-intervention on health-related behaviour outcomes (such as physical activity, screen time, eating behaviours, and internet use), and mental health (subjective well-being and self-efficacy). Participants in the intervention group showed favourable changes on self-reported health behaviours including high physical activity, regular breakfast, and decreasing frequent sugary beverages intake. However, there was no significant improvement in the mental health outcomes; though the intervention helped promote physical health behaviours, this in turn didn’t appear to improve mental health.

Targeted interventions

The majority of the evidence on active psychoeducation evaluates interventions delivered to all student groups, or those studying a particular course. Two studies, however, have evaluated interventions targeting female students and Black female students respectively. The first was conducted in the Netherlands evaluating an intervention that promotes self-compassion (Smeets et al., 2014) which involves treating oneself with care and concern, particularly when considering personal inadequacies, mistakes, failures, and painful life situations. Female students were randomised to the self-compassion intervention (taught self-compassion techniques in the face of difficulties), or a time-management training (the control group) for three sessions. The intervention group showed a significant increase in self-compassion (large effect size), mindfulness, optimism and self-efficacy, and significant decreases in rumination (medium effect sizes), when compared to the control. Group differences were not significant for life satisfaction, connectedness, positive and negative affect, or worry.

Jones, Ahn, Quezada and Chakravarty (2020) evaluated an intervention developed to combat race and gender related oppression for black women that can lead to mental health difficulties. A small sample of female undergraduate students that identified as Black were recruited via flyers and emails at two historically Black university campuses in the USA. Half of the sample were randomly allocated to the intervention known as ‘Claiming your Connections’, designed to reduce stress and enhance psychosocial competence through locus of control and active coping, with a Black feminist lens. Survey measures indicated that the intervention group had significantly decreased their external locus of control compared to the control group, with a small effect size; this indicates a perception that they, rather than external forces, had control over the outcomes of their lives. However, there were no significant changes in perceived stress or active coping.

Online or technology-delivered active psychoeducation

The remaining evidence for active psychoeducation evaluates interventions delivered via online modules or email communication with mixed success; one study shows a small to moderate positive effect and two others show a null or non-significant small positive effect. None of these studies were conducted in the UK.

Koydemir and Sun-Selışık (2016) evaluated an eight-week online strengths-based intervention which included five guided modules with associated reading on finding and cultivating strengths, regulating emotions, increasing positive relationships, problem solving and gratitude. In a RCT with 92 students attending a Turkish university, the intervention significantly increased quality of life, life satisfaction, subjective happiness and wellbeing, with small to moderate effect sizes.

A study conducted at a Romanian university evaluated ‘concreteness training’ designed to combat overgeneralisation, irrational beliefs and the drawing of inaccurate conclusions often seen in individuals with depression (Mogoaşe, Brăilean, and David, 2013). Students with moderate depressive symptoms were randomly allocated to the intervention delivered over seven days via email communication which guided students through mental imagery exercises based on a hypothetical scenario. Students were required to submit an assignment each day for a different scenario, providing details of their mental imagery. Concreteness of thinking (specific, clear, distinct descriptions), depressive symptoms and rumination were measured before and after the intervention was delivered. The intervention group had a significant increase in concreteness of thinking, with a medium effect size, but not on other symptoms. Previous evidence found the intervention combats depressive symptoms in a face-to-face setting in a non-student population (Watkins and Moberly, 2009), suggesting that delivering the intervention online may not be effective.

Shin (2013) evaluated the efficacy of a web-based intervention promoting Meaning in Life (MIL) with a large sample in the US. MIL can be defined as making sense of and seeing significance in one’s life, and having a purpose and aim. The intervention took place through online modules covering self-knowledge, key strengths, course/career meaning, and core values, before integrating self-knowledge to generate an action plan. MIL, depression and anxiety symptoms, Grade Point Average (GPA) and enrolment status (self-report rather than administrative data) were measured before the intervention, immediately after and at three and 12-month follow-up. Analysis showed those in the intervention group had a higher level of MIL than the control group post-intervention, though this difference was not significant. A higher sense of MIL was associated with fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. There was no impact of the intervention on self-reported GPA or enrolment.

It may also be useful to refer to some non-HE-specific evidence to contextualise the studies above. For example, Garrido et al. (2019) reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of digital mental health interventions and their effectiveness in addressing anxiety and depression in young people aged 12 to 25. Combining the results of nine RCTs, the authors conclude that digital mental health interventions have a small impact on depression compared to no intervention at all, and there is no difference when compared with an ‘active control’ (i.e. participants take part in some task/activity other than the intervention). The review concludes that such interventions may only be effective when highly-supervised, consisting of a more active approach, versus passive psychoeducation.

Interventions promoting healthy eating behaviours

The remaining studies on active psychoeducation focus on students at risk of eating disorders, demonstrating mixed success. Female students at a USA university responded to adverts inviting women with body image concerns to participate in an evaluation of body acceptance interventions (Stice et al., 2013). Nearly 400 students were randomised to either the ‘Healthy Weight’ intervention, a four week prevention programme promoting healthy diet and physical activity facilitated by clinical graduate students, or to the control group who received a brochure on how to improve body image. Intervention participants showed significantly lower eating disorder symptoms and body dissatisfaction, but not Body Mass Index (BMI), depressive symptoms, or calorie intake, at one- and two-year follow-up. Those who received the intervention showed a 60% reduction in eating disorder onset over the two-year follow-up, which represented a large effect size. They also reported significantly greater physical activity than controls at post-test, but not at longer-term follow-up. However, a ten-week online programme promoting healthy weight management had immediate but no sustained impact on a sample of 1,000 USA students (Kattelmann et al., 2014).

Mental Health First Aid

Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme which aims to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The programme teaches trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. Our review did not find any causal studies specifically evaluating the use of Mental Health First Aid in an HE context. However, it is relevant to highlight a recent review of 21 RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention or other ‘control’ interventions (such as first aid courses) alternative mental health literacy interventions (Richardson et al., 2023). Due to a lack of high-quality evidence, the authors conclude that it is not possible to draw conclusions about MHFA on mental health, although the existing evidence suggests that when MHFA training is compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months.

How secure is the evidence?

The current evidence base for active psychoeducation is emerging. There are a sizeable number of reasonable and medium/high-quality RCTs that have been conducted on a student population which provide causal evidence on these interventions, through comparison of a treatment group that receives the intervention and a control group that does not (or does so only after a set time period – a waitlist control). However, only one of these studies has been conducted in the UK; we need more robust evidence from the UK to draw reliable conclusions that are accurate for UK HE providers.

As noted above, the non-HE-specific evidence may also provide helpful insights for those seeking to develop and test interventions in HE. The reviews highlighted on this page tend to tentatively support active psychoeducation as an approach leading to small but positive effects on mental health in some non-HE populations. However, this is not universally true, as demonstrated by a recent study which found that an active psychoeducation intervention tested with secondary school pupils was actually associated with significant deteriorations or no effects on social and emotional outcomes over time, compared to business as usual (Harvey et al., 2023). The study faced a number of limitations, for example in terms of using a non-randomised design, but provides an important case study of how individual approaches should be tested in context to ensure no risk of harm.

More broadly, existing reviews suggest that effectiveness is likely to be impacted upon by the design of the intervention, the skills of the facilitator and the circumstances in which it is delivered. There is no consensus on the exact definition of psychoeducation, so understanding the evidence for specific interventions is key.

On the HE-specific studies uncovered via our review, the majority, bar those few targeting specific demographics, recruit students through poster and email campaigns, which results in an overrepresentation of white females in the evidence because these students are more likely to seek help and to use mental health services than males and those from marginalised ethnic backgrounds (Eisenberg, Golberstein, and Gollust, 2007). This makes the evidence for psychological interventions less secure for different student groups. Some of the evidence focuses on students on a specific course such as Medicine or Nursing who are exposed to work-based stressors quite unlike other HE courses. In other studies, students are encouraged to participate in exchange for credits needed as part of Social Science courses. This evidence should therefore be treated with caution as it may not be generalisable to students on different courses.

Much of the evidence captures mental health outcomes immediately or soon after the intervention has been received, so further research is needed to ascertain whether effects can be sustained in the long-term. In addition, there are no causal studies which focus on student outcomes, such as attainment and continuation, as well as mental health outcomes. It is important to understand whether interventions improve student mental health but also that they contribute to success on-course.

The use of self-report measures is also a limitation of the evidence cited above, particularly as for many interventions here students will have been acutely aware of the approach being tested, leading to a strong risk of students reporting better mental health outcomes because they think they are expected to. It should also be noted that some of the studies have small samples and/or there is insufficient detail in the paper to understand if the sample is big enough for the purpose of the analysis.

How do I evaluate this intervention?

RCTs are one of the most robust ways to measure interventions as they allow comparison of two groups that have either received or haven’t received the intervention, whilst controlling for observable and unobservable differences between the two groups. These trials should take place outside of lab settings to test whether, and how, interventions translate and perform in the ‘real world’. There are many examples in the literature on using a wait-list control design (see, for example, Dolbier, Jaggars, and Steinhardt, 2010); the key benefit of this design is that the control group is still able to receive the intervention, just at a later date once outcomes have been measured in both groups.

Outcomes should be measured using validated scales before and after the intervention has been received. As we are lacking evidence on the longer-term effects of interventions, measuring outcomes at multiple time points (e.g. three-, six- and 12-month follow-ups) is important, rather than only immediately after.

We also have a lack of evidence on the impact of active psychoeducation interventions on student outcomes such as attainment, retention and progression and HE providers should seek to embed these into evaluation plans.

One further limitation of the current literature is that interventions can be outlined in insufficient detail to allow accurate replication. This is particularly important given psychoeducation interventions can address a range of different skills and knowledge, from resilience to emotion regulation. HE providers should therefore include thorough intervention descriptions in their evaluations to allow others to build on their work.

See our evaluation guidance for more support.

Where can I find more information and guidance?

For guidance from the Mental Health Charter, please follow the links below.

Most active psychoeducation interventions fall under the following themes:

• Support services
• Proactive interventions and a mentally healthy environment
• Social integration and belonging
• Inclusivity and intersectional mental health

Where does the evidence come from?

The evidence in the Toolkit was gathered via an evidence review undertaken as part of the Student Mental Health Project. For full details of this review, please see our Methodology document.

It is important to note that our review, and therefore this Toolkit, only relates to student mental health. The review did not cover other populations (e.g. school children, other adult populations) or non-HE settings. The review was also subject to other inclusion/exclusion criteria, outlined in the Methodology document. However, we have flagged some additional links to the wider literature where appropriate and included them under ‘other references’ below.

Please also note that this Toolkit page only includes Type 3 (causal) studies which have been rated as providing medium/high-quality evidence according to our evidence strength ratings. These studies are outlined in the page above and referenced below. A full list of studies collated via our evidence review, including Type 1/Type 2 studies, and those rated as providing weak/emerging evidence, can be found in our Evidence Review Spreadsheet. A breakdown of these studies by type and strength of evidence is available to download.

Key references

Bentley, K.H., Boettcher, H., Bullis, J.R., Carl, J.R., Conklin, L.R., Sauer-Zavala, S., et al. (2018) Development of a Single-Session, Transdiagnostic Preventive Intervention for Young Adults at Risk for Emotional Disorders. Behaviour Modification. 42(5):781-805. doi:10.1177/0145445517734354

Dolbier, C. L., Jaggars, S. S., and Steinhardt, M. A. (2010) “Stress-Related Growth: Pre-Intervention Correlates and Change Following a Resilience Intervention.” Stress and Health, 26(2), 135-147. doi:10.1002/smi.1275

Duan, W. J., Ho, S. M. Y., Tang, X. Q., Li, T. T., and Zhang, Y. H. (2014) Character Strength-Based Intervention to Promote Satisfaction with Life in the Chinese University Context. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1347–1361. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9479-y

Foster, J., Allen, W., Oprescu, F. and McAllister, M. (2014) Mytern: an innovative approach to increase students’ achievement, sense of wellbeing and levels of resilience. Journal of the Australia and New Zealand Student Services Association, 43, 31-40. Available at: https://research.usc.edu.au/esploro/outputs/99449062902621

Games, N., Thompson, C.L. and Barrett, P. (2020) A randomised controlled trial of the Adult Resilience Program: A universal prevention program. International Journal of Psychology, 55, pp.78-87. doi:10.1002/ijop.12587

Godin, J. (2010) The effect of the Enneagram on psychological wellbeing and unconditional self-acceptance of young adults. Iowa State University. doi:10.31274/etd-180810-2243

Houston, J.B., First, J., Spialek, M.L., Sorenson, M.E., Mills-Sandoval, T., Lockett, M., First, N.L., Nitiéma, P., Allen, S.F. and Pfefferbaum, B. (2017) Randomized controlled trial of the Resilience and Coping Intervention (RCI) with undergraduate university students. Journal of American College Health, 65(1), pp.1-9. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1227826

Kattelmann, K.K., Bredbenner, C.B., White, A.A., Greene, G.W., Hoerr, S.L., Kidd, T., Colby, S., Horacek, T.M., Phillips, B.W., Koenings, M.M. and Brown, O.N., (2014) The effects of Young Adults Eating and Active for Health (YEAH): a theory-based Web-delivered intervention. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 46(6), pp.S27-S41. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.007

Koydemir, S. and Sun-Selışık, Z.E. (2016) wellbeing on campus: Testing the effectiveness of an online strengths-based intervention for first year college students. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 44(4), 434-446. doi:10.1080/03069885.2015.1110562

Lanz, J.J. (2020) Evidence-based resilience intervention for nursing students: a randomized controlled pilot trial. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 5(3), pp.217-230. doi:10.1007/s41042-020-00034-8

Mogoaşe, C., Brăilean, A. and David, D. (2013) Can concreteness training alone reduce depressive symptoms? A randomized pilot study using an internet-delivered protocol. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(4), 704-712. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9514-z

Nikoozadeh, E.K. (2020) Effectiveness of Hardiness Training Intervention on Students’ Perceived Stress and Psychological Hardiness. Int. J. Appl. Behav. Sci, 7, pp.58-66. Available at: https://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/ijabs/article/download/31965/25775/

Schoeps, K., de la Barrera, U. and Montoya-Castilla, I. (2020) Impact of emotional development intervention program on subjective wellbeing of university students. Higher Education, 79(4), 711-729. doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00433-0

Shin, J.Y. (2013) Improving first-year intervention strategies at universities by focusing on meaning and purpose in life (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University). Available at: https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10217/80180/Shin_colostate_0053A_11866.pdf

Smeets, E., Neff, K., Alberts, H., Peters, M. (2014) Meeting suffering with kindness: Effects of a brief self-compassion intervention for female college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(9), 794-807. doi:10.1002/jclp.22076

Steinhardt, M., & Dolbier, C. (2008) Evaluation of a resilience intervention to enhance coping strategies and protective factors and decrease symptomatology. Journal of American College Health, 56(4), 445–453. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.44.445-454

Stice, E., Rohde, P., Shaw, H. and Marti, C.N. (2013) Efficacy trial of a selective prevention program targeting both eating disorders and obesity among female college students: 1-and 2-year follow-up effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(1), p.183. doi:10.1037/a0031235

Yang, X.H., Yu, H.J., Liu, M.W., Zhang, J., Tang, B.W., Yuan, S., Gasevic, D., Paul, K., Wang, P.G. and He, Q.Q. (2020) The impact of a health education intervention on health behaviors and mental health among Chinese college students. Journal of American College Health, 68(6), pp.587-592. doi:10.1080/07448481.2019.1583659

Yusoff, M.S.B. (2015) A DEAL-based intervention for the reduction of depression, denial, self-blame and academic stress: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 10(1), 82-92. doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2014.08.003

Other references

Baourda, V.C., Brouzos, A., Mavridis, D., Vassilopoulos, S.P., Vatkali, E. & Boumpouli, C. (2022) Group Psychoeducation for Anxiety Symptoms in Youth: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work. 47 (1), 22–42. doi:10.1080/01933922.2021.1950881

Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A. and Brown, G.K. (1996) Manual for Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II). Psychology Corp. San Antonio, TX. doi: 10.1037/t00742-000

Bevan Jones, R., Thapar, A., Stone, Z., Thapar, A., Jones, I., Smith, D. & Simpson, S. (2018) Psychoeducational interventions in adolescent depression: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling. 101 (5), 804–816. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2017.10.015

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003) Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.

Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E. and Gollust, S.E. (2007) Help-seeking and access to mental health care in a university student population. Medical care, pp.594-601. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31803bb4c1

Harvey, L.J., White, F.A., Hunt, C. & Abbott, M. (2023) Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 169, 104408. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408

Richardson, R., Dale, H.E., Robertson, L., Meader, N., Wellby, G., McMillan, D. & Churchill, R. (2023) Mental Health First Aid as a tool for improving mental health and well-being Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group (ed.). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2023 (8). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013127.pub2

Tursi, M.F.D.S., Baes, C.V.W., Camacho, F.R.D.B., Tofoli, S.M.D.C. & Juruena, M.F. (2013) Effectiveness of psychoeducation for depression: A systematic review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 47 (11), 1019–1031. doi:10.1177/0004867413491154

Watkins, E. R., & Moberly, N. J. (2009) Concreteness training reduces dysphoria: A pilot proof-of-principle study. Behavior Research and Therapy, 47(1), 48–53. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.10.014