A systematic review of students’ support services provision in higher education (SSSPiHE) in sub-Saharan Africa

Figures & data

Figure 1. Articles selection process. Source: Literature inclusion and exclusion process adapted from PRISMA (Moher et al., 2009).

Figure 2. Author and year visualisation of articles published on student support services provision in higher education in SSA.

Figure 3. Research focus areas in SSSP in the SSA higher education delivery (2012–2022).

Table 1. Yearly publication patterns in SSSP-related articles.

Year	Research focus areas	Frequency	Sub-total	(%)
2012	Accommodation Service	1
	Disability Support Service	1
	ICT Support Service	3	5	9.4%
2013	Accommodation service	1
	ICT Support Service	3
	Library Support Service	1	5	9.4 %
2014	ICT Support Service	3
	Accommodation Support Services	1	4	7.5%
2015	ICT Support Service	2
	Disability Support Service	1
	Library Support Service	1	4	7.5%
2016	Disability Support Service	2
	Library Service	2
	ICT Support Service	5
	Staff Training Services	1	10	18.8%
2017	ICT Support Service	5
	Disability Support Service	2	7	13%
2018	ICT Support Service	5
	Disability Support Service	1
	Library Support Service	1	7	13%
2019	ICT Support Service	3	3	5.6%
2020	Accommodation Support Service	1
	ICT Support Service	3
	Financial Support Service	1	4	7.5%
2021	ICT Support Service	3	3	5.6%
2022	ICT Support Service	1	1	1.8 %
	Total	53	53	100%

Figure 4. Pie Chart on type of service mention in SSSP-related studies.

Figure 5. Country contribution to SSSP in the SSA higher Education Delivery concern (2012–2022).

Table 2. Methodological details of student support services provision studies.

Approach	Count	Percentage	Instrument
			Questionnaire	Interview	Questionnaire and interview	Document extraction
Quantitative	17	32.1%	17 (32%)
Qualitative	21	39.6%		21 (40%)
Mixed method	10	18.9%			10 (19%)
Desktop review	5	9.4%				5 (9%)
Total	53	100%

Table 3. Subjects and sample sizes used in articles related to student support service provision.

			Sample size
Subjects	Number of studies	Percentage	< = 150 Small	>150< =250 Medium	>250 Large
Student	21	55%	5 (28.8%)	6 (29.0%)	10 (48.0%)
Academic Staff	4	11%	3 (85.7%)		1 (25%)
Administrative Staff	3	8%	3 (100%)
Students and Administrative Staff	3	8%	2 (33.3%)		1 (25%)
Students and Academic Staff	3	8%	2 (63.6%)		1 (25%)
Administrative Staff, Academic Staff and Students	2	5%
Administrative Staff and Academic Staff	2	5%	2 (100%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)
Total	38	100%

Table 4. Stakeholders, involvement in SSSP-related studies.

Indicators of stakeholders, involvement in SSSP-related studies	No of studies (%)
Lecturers/Tutors providing technical teaching support services to for students:	4 (12.5 %)
Concern student groups such as alumni, student representative councils, religious bodies, unions, etc. provided teaching support services	12 (37.5%)
University Management/Administrators provided support to improve teaching and learning support services	5 (15.6 %)
Individual landlords provided students with accommodation support services	1 (3.1 %)
Local University Governing Councils	1 (3.1 %)
Private Housing Companies Provided Students with Housing Support Services	1 (3.1 %)
Disability Service Staff provided general teaching and well-being support services.	1 (3.1 %)
Governments and Ministries of Education	4 (12.5%)
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)	2 (6.25%)
International Education Advocacy Organisations	1 (3.1 %)
Total	32 (100%)

Figure 6. Strategies discussed in SSSP-related studies in the SSA higher educational context.

Table 5. Challenges discussed in SSSP-related studies reviewed.

Challenges in SSS provision	No of studies (%)
Irregular flow of funds coupled with high cost of ICT infrastructure	7 (21.21%)
High cost of training of academic staff to provide IT services	5 (15.15 %)
Challenges in dealing with digital divide involving uneven supply of student ICT facilities	5 (15.15 %)
Challenges in providing learning facilities for students with educational special needs and disabilities	3 (9.09 %)
Unfavourable governance policies and structures for providing students support services	2 (6.06%)
Challenges with the provision and management of teaching and e-learning facilities	11 (33.33%)
Total	33 (100%)

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269, W64. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar