Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:49 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 13 D: Well Being and Mental Health
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Mental Health Literacy in Higher Education: Instructors’ Perception of their Contribution to Pre-service Educators’ and Social Workers’ Attitudes towards Mental Health Universitat de Barcelona, Spain Presenting Author:Mental health is a fundamental human right (Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2023) that has gained prominence since the COVID-19 pandemic amid rising mental health problems and insufficient professional provision (WHO, 2022). Social workers, teachers and educators in general are among the professionals who must give some professional response to the mental health challenges of students, clients and their families on a daily basis. This response relies on their knowledge on and attitude towards mental health, that is their mental health literacy (MHL). The concept of MHL (Jorm et al., 1997) has been particularly useful to understand and predict professionals’ interventions because it encompasses people’s beliefs about mental health problems and stigmas associated to them, as well as how to prevent mental health issues, search for proper help and offer it to other people. There is a broad consensus that pre-service educators require training to address mental health issues, reflecting the growing recognition that schools are vital spaces for prevention, detection and referral (Skrzypek, 2024; Waters, 2011; Weare & Nind, 2011). Accordingly, educational institutions occupy a privileged position for promoting students’ MHL (Reavley et al., 2012). Teachers and school support staff are increasingly regarded as invaluable yet underutilised mental health resources (Moon et al., 2017). Teachers are often directly involved in delivering support and may at times be the sole providers of interventions such as social-emotional learning (Skrzypek, 2024). Thus, their beliefs and motivation are crucial for school-based support and the early identification of mental health difficulties (Maclean & Law, 2022). Moreover, the association between teacher well-being and both classroom performance and reduced psychological distress among students suggests that strengthening teachers’ MHL can positively influence the mental health of teachers and students alike (Pozo-Rico et al., 2023; Skrzypek, 2024). Consequently, integrating MHL into teacher education may enable educational institutions to play a pivotal role in destigmatising mental health issues and fostering a supportive school environment. While teacher training has received considerable attention, social work education faces similar challenges. Owing to the nature of their profession, social workers are likely to regularly engage with individuals experiencing mental health difficulties. However, concerns persist that these practitioners are not always adequately trained to meet service users’ needs. (Cesare & King, 2015; Kourgiantakis et al., 2022). Beyond theoretical knowledge, social workers must develop awareness of their own values, biases and assumptions. Kourgiantakis et al. (2022) advocate strengthening knowledge and assessment skills among both social work students and practitioners, yet research indicates that social workers lack MHL (Cesare and King, 2015; Martin, 2016). Moreover, social work degree programmes may emphasise sociological perspectives or critiques of psychiatry at the expense of biological and clinical dimensions (Cesare & King, 2015). Finally, both social workers and educators face an elevated risk of burnout due to their working conditions (Molnar et al., 2017; Skrzypek, 2024). In this context, MHL is particularly relevant for protecting their own mental health. The Faculty of Education of the Universitat de Barcelona offers undergraduate degrees in Education, Social Education, Early Childhood Education, Primary Education and Social Work. In Spain, both teacher educators and social educators can carry out socio-educational interventions in institutions that assist, teach and support individuals experiencing mental health problems. Thus, students across these five bachelor’s degree programmes stand to gain from MHL both personally and professionally; however, little evidence exists regarding how HE courses actively cultivate or strengthen students’ MHL. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The aim of the study was to investigate the perceptions of higher education instructors regarding whether and how the courses they teach contribute to improving the MHL of students enrolled in Education, Social Education, Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, and Social Work degrees. To this end, a quantitative design was adopted, and a survey was developed and administered to instructors of all courses related to mental health, health, emotional well-being, psychology, diagnosis in education, counselling, diversity, educational inclusion, human relations, social skills, communication, conflict resolution, embodiment and gender. Furthermore, instructors of all courses involving the supervision of students’ professional placements were also included, given the mental health challenges students often face during early professional placements. Once the list of courses was complete, 297 instructors of these courses were identified, and 10 were excluded, as they were members of the research team. Next, 287 individual emails were sent to all selected instructors explaining the research and inviting them to participate. Of the 287 instructors invited, 105 (36.6%) completed the survey. The survey asked participants to rate, on a Likert scale from 0 to 10, the extent to which their teaching in HE: a) contributed to increasing students’ knowledge about mental health issues, b) addressed distorted beliefs about mental health issues, c) helped students understand how to achieve and sustain good mental health, d) informed students about available mental health treatments and resources, e) provided students with resources to support individuals who might be experiencing mental health issues and f) contributed to reducing stigma surrounding mental health issues. Open-ended questions asked participants to provide examples of how their teaching addressed these aspects of MHL. Quantitative analysis of agreement ratings for the survey items was conducted using SPSS software (version 29). Descriptive statistics— frequencies, means and standard deviations— were calculated to summarise data. Group comparisons across sociodemographic variables were made using non-parametric statistical tests (Mann-Whitney U test). Inductive content analysis was used to examine responses to the open-ended questions. This procedure involved classifying and reducing textual fragments into manageable content categories using established coding rules (Schreier, 2014). The research project was approved by the Bioethics Commission of the Universitat de Barcelona, reference no. CER012520. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Participants agreed most with their contribution to reducing stigma surrounding mental health issues, increasing students’ knowledge about these issues and helping students understand how to achieve and sustain good mental health. Providing resources to students so that they can offer help to people who may be experiencing a mental health issue and informing students about available mental health treatments and resources were the least agreed items. The average responses indicate that MHL remains only a modest priority in the training of pre-service educators and social workers. The highest mean scores were only just over 6 on a 0-10 scale. Moreover, many open-ended responses qualified the closed-ended findings, as numerous examples provided by participants were not aligned with the focus of the item. Participants reported enhancing their students’ MHL through three main approaches. The first was teaching mental health concepts, a component of teacher training that may improve students’ knowledge and reduce distorted beliefs. The second was the discussion of real cases of mental health problems that often mirrored situations students may encounter in future practice. The third was creating safe environments in which instructors and students shared their stories and reflected on their current or future mental health as practitioners. Given that professionals have their own mental health needs and that MHL cannot be reduced to concepts alone, the third approach appears particularly conducive to developing an MHL that fosters attitudinal change and improvements in mental health. Part-time instructors who did not hold a PhD showed significantly greater agreement about their contribution to students’ MHL than their full-time PhD-qualified peers. These findings suggest that HE instructors who also work outside the university may be more sensitive to the need for MHL in HE. While not unexpected, this contrast highlights how field experience can raise awareness of mental health challenges. References Cesare, P. & King, R. (2015). Social workers’ beliefs about the interventions for schizophrenia and depression: a comparison with the public and other health professionals – an Australian analysis. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(6), 1750-1770. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu005 Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Pollitt, P. (1997). "Mental health literacy”: A survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. The Medical Journal of Australia, 166, 182. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb140071.x Kourgiantakis, T., Sewell, K. M., McNeil, S., Lee, E., Logan, J., Kuehl, D., McCormick, M., Adamson, K. & Kirvan, A. (2022). Journal of Social Work Education, 58(1), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2020.1773363 Maclean, L. & Law, J. M. (2022). Supporting primary school students’ mental health needs: teachers’ perceptions of roles, barriers, and abilities. Psychology in the schools, 59, 2359-2377. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22648 Martin, J. (2016). Mental health literacy and social work education. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 18(1), 103-120. https://journal.anzswwer.org/index.php/advances/article/view/227 Molnar, B. E., Sprang, G., Killian, K. D., Gottfried, R., Emery, V., & Bride, B. E. (2017). Advancing science and practice for vicarious traumatization/secondary traumatic stress: A research agenda. Traumatology, 23(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000122 Moon, J., Williford, A. & Mendenhall, A. (2017). Educators’ perceptions of youth mental health: implications for training and the perception of mental health services in schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 384-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.006 Pozo-Rico, T., Poveda, R., Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., Castejón, J.-L. & Gilar-Corbi, R. (2023). Revamping teacher training for challenging times: teachers’ well-being, resilience, emotional intelligence, and innovative methodologies as key teaching competencies. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S382572 Reavley, N. J., McCann, T. V. & Jorn, A. F. (2012). Mental health literacy in higher education students. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 6, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7893.2011.00314.x Skrzypek, C. (2024). The teachers’ mental health literacy scale. Psychology in the Schools, 61, 4133-4150. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23274 Waters, L. (2011). A Review of School-Based Positive Psychology Interventions. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1375/aedp.28.2.75 Weare, K. & Nind, M. (2011). Mental health promotion and problem prevention in schools: what does the evidence say? Health Promotion International, 26(S1), i29-i69. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/heapro/dar075 WHO (2022). World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all. World Health Organization. Zubiri-Esnaola, H., Racionero-Plaza, S., Fernández-Villardón, A. & Carbonell, S. (2023). “It was Very Liberating”. Dialogic Literary Gatherings Supporting Mental Health Literacy. Community Mental Health Journal, 59, 869-880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-022-01071-0 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Expectations vs. Reality: A Qualitative Study on the Origins and Coping Strategies of Doctoral Psychological Distress Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, People's Republic of Presenting Author:In recent years, the mental health issues of doctoral students have continuously attracted significant attention from the global academic community. Research indicated that doctoral students faced a 2.43 times higher risk of mental distress compared to the control group with higher education (Levecque et al., 2017), and meta-analyses have confirmed that approximately 24% and 17% of doctoral students exhibited significant depressive and anxious symptoms respectively (Hazell et al., 2021). This finding has been continuously verified in various countries over the years, and it shows universality across different disciplines and cultural backgrounds (Bergvall et al., 2025). Regarding this phenomenon, existing literature has accumulated a large amount of empirical research, mainly identifying three key factors that affect the mental health of doctoral students. Firstly, individual psychological resources. Regarding psychological capital such as self-efficacy and perfectionism tendencies, researchers focus on how they act as moderating variables to buffer the negative effects of academic pressure (Cao et al., 2024; Moate et al., 2019). Secondly, interpersonal and mentor relationships. A large number of studies have confirmed that the support style of the supervisor and the sense of belonging to the academic community are the most significant variables predicting the mental health of doctoral students, while an inappropriate mentoring relationship directly leads to psychological burnout (Ringo, 2025). Finally, structural and environmental factors. Scholars have pointed out that the uncertain career prospects in the academic field, unstable financial support, and the cultural atmosphere of high-performance pressure cause continuous structural stress on students (Estupiñá et al., 2024; Byrom et al., 2022). Although existing research has widely identified these risk factors, the current academic discussion still has obvious limitations. First, existing research mostly adopts cross-sectional designs, focusing on measuring the static correlation between stressors and psychological symptoms, and lack research on the dynamic process of the occurrence and evolution of psychological predicaments in doctoral students. Second, regarding doctoral students as active individuals, what specific coping strategies they adopt to maintain psychological balance when facing multiple pressures in academia and life, and the effectiveness of these strategies in actual academic contexts, the current micro-level exploration is still lacking. Therefore, this study aims to adopt qualitative research methods, not limited to verifying known stress factors, but dedicated to revealing the specific process of the generation of doctoral students' psychological distress and deeply analyzing the actual coping strategies they adopt when facing pressure. Based on the above purposes, this study proposes two specific research questions. First, how do doctoral students describe the origin and evolution process of their psychological distress during their doctoral studies? Second, when facing academic pressure, what specific behavioral or cognitive coping strategies do doctoral students adopt, and how do they evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used 1. Research Design and Methods This study adopts a qualitative research paradigm. To capture both individual experiences and group interactions simultaneously, we draw on the pioneering work of Love et al. (2020) and Palmer et al. (2010), and apply the analysis principles of IPA to the focus group data. Addressing the challenge of traditional IPA's focus on individuals (Smith et al., 2021) and its difficulty in handling group dynamics (Tomkins & Eatough, 2010), this study adopts an adaptive IPA approach. We utilize group interactions to stimulate discussions (Kitzinger, 1995) and compare group themes with individual narratives through additional iterative cycles. While adhering to the commitment of IPA's individual orientation (Love et al., 2020), this study effectively reveals the unique psychological dilemma generation mechanism of doctoral students. 2. Participants and Sampling This study employs purposive maximum variation sampling. We recruited 34 current doctoral students from a comprehensive university in China. Following the recommendation of Love et al. (2020) and Morgan (1997), we assigned participants to 6 small, homogeneous focus groups. This grouping method helps promote in-depth interaction among participants and also facilitates clear tracking of individual narrative threads in subsequent analyses. During the sampling process, we focused on three key variables: gender, academic field, and training stage, to ensure that the sample could cover diverse academic survival experiences. 3. Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews. Each group interview lasted 90-120 minutes, and was video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The design of the interview outline was based on the framework principles proposed by Kvale (1996), starting with relatively relaxed topics and gradually delving into core issues such as specific stress events, and finally exploring coping strategies. The moderator facilitated participants' mutual responses to utilize group dynamics to stimulate richer personal narratives (Love et al., 2020). Data analysis followed the core steps of Smith et al. (2021) and was integrated with the adaptive strategies for focus group design (Love et al., 2020; Palmer et al., 2010). 4. Research Rigor and Ethics In terms of rigor, following the standards of Lincoln and Guba (1985), we employed triangulation and reflexivity logs to monitor the researchers' subjective biases. In terms of ethics, we strictly adhere to the principle of non-harm. All participants signed informed consent forms, and personal information was strictly de-identified. After the interviews, we provided each participant with a list of psychological support resources to address possible emotional discomfort. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study's data analysis has revealed a core theme, suggesting that the imbalance between expectations and reality is the main cause of psychological distress among doctoral students. This imbalance is manifested in five aspects. Firstly, in the relationship between teachers and students, doctoral students long for professional guidance but are treated “instrumentally”, and even situations where the mentor's guidance is absent occur. In terms of academic requirements, doctoral students' longing for pure academic exploration is often replaced by high-level academic demands and high-performance pressure, leading to widespread anxiety about graduation delays. In terms of employment prospects, scarce job opportunities and the depreciation of academic qualifications result in widespread panic about the decline in doctoral competitiveness. In terms of economic conditions, “meager” allowances make it difficult for doctoral students to achieve independence, and even feelings of guilt towards their families arise. Finally, in social relationships, the intense research work takes up time, causing the original social circles to become distant and difficult to expand. In response to these disparities, doctoral students have adopted various coping mechanisms. Although some students can adapt by establishing peer support networks and redefining their life boundaries, the study shows that a significant proportion of students tend to adopt non-adaptive strategies, such as avoiding their mentors, delaying work, or self-isolation. These strategies may provide short-term relief from anxiety, but in the long run, they often exacerbate psychological exhaustion. Based on the Work Requirements-Resources Model (JD-R), this series of disparities is essentially a mismatch between resources and requirements, that is, the existing supportive resources are far from sufficient to buffer work requirements and pressures. Therefore, to solve this psychological predicament, it is necessary to rationalize the system requirements while increasing the supply of key resources, fundamentally repairing the imbalance between expectations and reality. References Bergvall, S., Fernström, C., Ranehill, E., & Sandberg, A. (2025). The impact of PhD studies on mental health—a longitudinal population study. Journal of Health Economics, 103070. Byrom, N. C., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A., & Hughes, G. (2022). Predicting stress and mental wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal of Mental Health, 31(6), 783-791. Cao, F., Zhang, L. F., Li, M., & Xie, Z. (2024). Subjective well-being among PhD students in mainland China: the roles of psychological capital and academic engagement. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1354451. Estupiñá, F. J., Santalla, Á., Prieto-Vila, M., Sanz, A., & Larroy, C. (2024). Mental health in doctoral students: Individual, academic, and organizational predictors. Psicothema, 36(2), 123-132. Hazell, C. M., Niven, J. E., Chapman, L., Roberts, P. E., Cartwright-Hatton, S., Valeix, S., & Berry, C. (2021). Nationwide assessment of the mental health of UK Doctoral Researchers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-9. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research policy, 46(4), 868-879. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage master, peter (1999) editorial. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 102-4. Love, B., Vetere, A., & Davis, P. (2020). Should interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) be used with focus groups? Navigating the bumpy road of “iterative loops,” idiographic journeys, and “phenomenological bridges”. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920921600. Moate, R. M., Gnilka, P. B., West, E. M., & Rice, K. G. (2019). Doctoral student perfectionism and emotional well-being. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 52(3), 145-155. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage. Palmer, M., Larkin, M., De Visser, R., & Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative research in psychology, 7(2), 99-121. Ringo, D. S. (2025). When relationships make a difference! Supervisor support and PhD students’ academic performance in the journey: the moderating effect of supervisor-student relationship quality. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2479403. Smith, J. A., Larkin, M., & Flowers, P. (2021). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Bmj, 311(7000), 299-302. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: an introduction to qualitive research interviewing. Sage. Tomkins, L., & Eatough, V. (2010). Reflecting on the use of IPA with focus groups: Pitfalls and potentials. Qualitative research in psychology, 7(3), 244-262. | ||