EVERY CLOUD HAS A SILVER LINING: SHORT-TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON BRITISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

ABSTRACT

There are widespread concerns about the mental health implications of the pandemic, particularly among university students, an already at-risk population for poor mental health. This study looked at 1,281 UK university students, recruited through the Prolific website. Participants were asked to complete the Attitudes towards COVID-19 Scale, the CORE-10, the PERMA Profiler, the GAD-7 and the Office for National Statistics wellbeing questions (ONS4). The first survey was conducted between May 14^th and 16^th, when the UK was in national lockdown. The second survey was carried out between June 26^th and July 15^th. There was only an 11% attrition rate between the two time points. Well-being improved overall between the two time points. Some findings were contradictory as overall well-being, anxiety and levels of flourishing improved, but reports of psychological distress increased. It is also important to note that levels of positivity about the pandemic increased as time went on. There was evidence that higher levels of positivity were linked to better mental health outcomes. Encouraging a positive mindset and outlook in students, probably through positive psychology-based interventions, might act as a protective factor against severe mental illness. The wider relevance and practical implications for higher education are discussed.

Keywords:

• wellbeing
• Covid-19
• university students
• anxiety
• psychological distress
• flourishing

1. Introduction

There is widespread concern that the COVID-19 outbreak, the most devastating health epidemic in recent history (WHO, 2020), will contribute towards substantial and long-term mental health implications worldwide (Holmes et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2020;). Research has shown that during any epidemic, the general population experience significant stress due to the feelings of helplessness, boredom, loneliness and depression caused by social isolation (IFRC, 2020; Lau et al., 2006). However, the long-term scale of COVID-19 along with the paralyzing effect on economies are expected to cultivate unparalleled effects (Torales et al., 2020). Since March 2020 when lockdown was announced in the UK, the general public have faced numerous adversities, such as financial difficulties and uncertainty, risk of losing employment and accommodation, limited access to basic necessities such as food and medicine and adverse domestic experiences (Usher et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2020). These stressful adversities, prior to an international health epidemic, contribute towards poor psychological well-being (Charles et al., 2013). Likewise, people are in constant fear and worry about the risks, stressors and uncertainties associated with the COVID-19 epidemic, that pose an immediate threat to their personal health and safety (Inter-Agency Standing Committee, 2020). Research has demonstrated the drastic mental health effects of the outbreak (Hill and Burrow, 2020). Such that, findings have reported greater depression and anxiety (Fancourt et al., 2020a; Wang et al., 2020), increased loneliness (Bu et al., 2020; Mental Health Foundation, 2020), impaired sleep duration and quality (Wright et al., 2020), insomnia (Voitsidis et al., 2020), stress (Fancourt et al., 2020a), increased alcohol consumption (Holmes, 2020) and increased self-harm and suicidal ideation (Fancourt et al., 2020a).

According to Hussain et al. (2013), university students are a population group that is at increasing risk of experiencing mental health problems. Under normal circumstances university life encompasses an array of stressors, including financial, academic, health and social challenges (Kannangara et al., 2018) that tend to lead to poor psychological well-being (Ali et al., 2013). Increasing mental health problems and suicides (Institute for Public Policy Research, 2017) has resulted in an increased demand for counselling services (Institute for Public Policy Research, 2017). In fact, the student mental health crisis has become of increasing concern to the UK government (Department for Education, 2018).

We already know that public health emergencies elicit several mental health problems among university students such as anxiety, fear and worry (Mei et al., 2011). So far, research has revealed that university students are suffering from increasing mental health problems due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Cao et al., 2020; Kaparounaki et al., 2020; Odriozola-González et al., 2020). Indeed, university students have reported increased levels of depression, anxiety and stress (Islam et al., 2020) with over half of the students reporting they were moderately to severely impacted by the outbreak (Odriozola-González et al., 2020). According to Cao et al. (2020) 25% of university students were experiencing anxiety associated with academic concerns, financial worries and the impact of the outbreak on their daily life. Further, one study revealed a 63.3% increase in suicidal thoughts, and quality of life decreased by 57% amongst a group of 1000 university students (Kaparounaki et al., 2020). When considering the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives of university students, the drastic decline in mental well-being is not all that surprising. Alongside the generic adversities caused by the pandemic surrounding health risks, financial strain, job security, isolation and limited access to basic necessities (Usher et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2020); university students have also encountered huge disruption to their education (WUN, 2020). The closure of university campus’ and face-to-face teaching forced the almost overnight transition to distance learning (Schleicher, 2020) whereby 1.5 billion students were now learning from home (UNESCO, 2020). Adjusting to online learning has been challenging due to new assessment methods (Schleicher, 2020) and increased workload (Aristovnik et al., 2020) Many students were now studying in a home environment that was not ideal or suitable for home learning without a desk or a quiet place to study (Bao, 2020; Barada et al., 2020). On top of this, students are experiencing an alarming and imminent impact on their future prospects (Aristovnik et al., 2020) as there is still great uncertainty about how the pandemic will impact the labour market (Marinoni et al., 2020).

With the COVID-19 pandemic likely to cause long-lasting disruption to higher education and create mental health implications, ongoing research into the psychological needs of students must be hastened (Odriozola-González et al., 2020). It poses a challenge to shape mental health support services for students, with a lack of empirical evidence to support it (WUN, 2020). Only through strengthening the current research base can universities inform future support strategies in response to the unique mental health needs of the student population (Grubic et al., 2020). It is therefore of paramount importance that the psychological implications of COVID-19 are monitored, so that targeted and relevant resources can be in place to support students remotely and continue to support them in person when universities re-open their doors to existing and prospective students (Hillman, 2020). Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 on university students and determine how COVID-19 has influenced mental health in British university students. By adopting a repeated measures design, this study aimed to track these psychological effects over time. There are three main research questions for this study: (1) How has the mental well-being of British university students changed after 6 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) How has British university students attitude towards COVID-19 changed after 6 weeks? (3) How do attitudes towards COVID-19 influence mental well-being in British university students?

Theoretical Framework

Promoting well-being is considered just as, if not more important than treating mental illness (Slade, 2010) – an argument pioneered by the positive psychology movement. The initial positive psychology movement was criticised for being ‘too positive’ by not acknowledging the realistic notion that people will encounter challenges, adversities, bereavement and disregarding the existent of negative emotions (Wong and Roy, 2018). Second-wave positive psychology, adapted by Paul Wong (2017) provides a more balanced perspective that acknowledges the entire human experience, the good and the bad (Waterman, 2013). The design of this study is underpinned by second-wave positive psychology. Indeed, this study captures the overall well-being of university students by measuring and tracking mental illness (psychological distress, anxiety) and mental wellbeing (flourishing, subjective well-being). A more comprehensive picture of university student’s mental health during COVID-19, which acknowledges the presence of mental illness and mental well-being, will offer more worthwhile findings, recommendations and implications to policy and practice.

2. Materials and Methods

Design

This study adopted a repeated measures design that aimed to track the short-term psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being of British university students. Participants were asked to complete a series of standardised measures online between the 12^th and 14^th of May 2020 (T1), which was the 7^th week of confinement in the UK) and around 6 weeks later between the 25^th June and the 15^th of July (T2) when lockdown measures were beginning to change. Participants were allowed more time to complete the survey at T2 due to the fact that students were on summer break and given that students do not access emails, responses were expected to be slower. The survey was kept open longer to increase the response rate.

Participants

Participants were 1281 university students, both male (N = 398) and female (N = 877), six participants chose not to specify their gender. A random probability sampling technique was used. The vast majority of participants were between the ages of 18 and 23 (N = 994). All participants were from the United Kingdom. See Table 1 for a full breakdown of participant demographics.

TABLE 1. Demographic characteristics of the participant sample

Demographic characteristic		Number of Participants (N)	Percentage of Sample (%)
Gender	Female	877	68.5
	Male	398	31.1
Age	18–19	307	24
	20–21	468	36.6
	22–23	219	17.1
	24–30	159	11.3
	31–40	87	6.7
	41+	41	4.3

Materials

Attitudes Towards COVID-19 (ATC-19)

Each participant was asked to complete the Attitudes towards COVID-19 Scale (ATC-19), which was developed by Faculty members of the Psychology Department at the University of Bolton. The questions for this scale were based on the questions frequently asked to medical practitioners of NHS and research done on psychological effects of SARS (Chua et al., 2004; Spinelli and Pellino, 2020; Wong et al., 2005). This 23-item scale measures attitudes towards and experiences of, the COVID-19 pandemic. A full breakdown of the scale is provided in Table 2. Participants rate their responses along a 10-point rating scale, which includes positively and negatively worded items. Items 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 were reverse coded prior to analysis, to ensure the items of the scale weighted equally. In this scale, a high score indicates a negative attitude toward or experience of COVID-19. All items were generated using a deductive method of item generation (Morgado et al., 2017). These items, generated by the authors, were subject to review by the expert opinion of psychology professors and researchers, which is an accepted analysis of content validity (Ladhari, 2010). Although a combination of deductive and inductive methods of item generation are recommended (DeVellis, 2003), the recent and unfamiliar nature of the topic of study rendered it impossible to employ an inductive method of item generation as there are no, or few, already existing measures on this topic. Internal reliability analysis using the data from the present study revealed a Cronbach’s alpha estimate of .75.

TABLE 2. Factor loadings from a principal axis factoring using direct oblimin rotation

Items of Attitudes Towards COVID-19
	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Factor 1 (Fears and Anxieties about COVID-19)
3. How much time have you been spending worrying about COVID-19?	.861
15. I spend a lot of my days just sitting and overthinking about COVID-19.	.778
5. How many times in a day do you have to distract yourself from thinking about COVID-19?	.756
2. How stressed do you feel about contracting COVID-19?	.737
9. I am worried about my family and friends contracting COVID-19.	.543
10. I spend more time every day on social media, as I am concerned about my family and friends.	.472
16. I am not able to focus on my daily activities because of COVID-19.	.266
Factor 2 (Positivity in the COVID-19 Pandemic)
11. I think that despite being harmful in general, COVID-19 is a blessing in disguise for earth/environment/human race.		.632
20. I think going through COVID-19 pandemic has been a positive experience		.587
13. I believe that COVID-19 has provided us an opportunity to come together as a society.		.509
Factor 3 (Loneliness in the COVID-19 Pandemic)
6. Social Distancing has had a negative impact on my personal life.			−.760
18. I have found social distancing very hard.			−.688
19. I have felt very lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic.			−.663
Cronbach’s Alpha	.84	.58	.74
Variance Explained (%)	23.74	10.41	7.73

Psychological Distress (CORE-10)

Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10) is a 10-item measure of psychological distress, adapted from the original 34-item CORE-OM (Barkham et al., 2013; Connell and Barkham, 2007). This scale is rated on a 5-point frequency of occurrence basis, from ‘not at all’ to ‘most or all of the time’ in response to items such as ‘I have felt tense or anxious’. The reliability and validity of this scale has been extensively tested and confirmed (Barkham et al., 2013). Internal reliability analysis using the data from the present study revealed a Cronbach’s alpha estimate of .84.

Flourishing (PERMA-Profiler)

The PERMA Profiler is a 23-item measure of flourishing, developed by Butler and Kern (2016). Total PERMA score consists of five PERMA subscales: positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishments, each being measured by three items. This scale also measures physical health, negative emotion using three items, with loneliness and overall happiness being single item scores. This scale is scored in the form of a rating scale. For example, Item 5 asks ‘How often do you feel joyful?’ with anchors of 0 (‘Never’) and 10 (‘Always’). This scale has good reliability and validity and has been successfully used by other researchers (Ascenso et al., 2018). Internal reliability analysis using the data from the present study revealed a Cronbach’s alpha estimate of .94.

Anxiety (GAD-7)

This is a 7-item measure of generalised anxiety disorder and is often used as a screening tool and symptom severity measure for clinically significant anxiety disorders in outpatient settings. This scale is rated on a 4-point frequency of occurrence basis, from ‘not at all’ to ‘nearly every day’ in response to items such as ‘Worrying too much about different things’. The GAD-7 has been shown to have good internal consistency (Tiirikainen et al., 2019), good criterion validity (Spitzer et al., 2006) and good construct validity (Tiirikainen et al., 2019). Likewise, internal reliability analysis using the data from the present study revealed a Cronbach’s alpha estimate of .89.

Personal Well-being (ONS-4)

This is a short, 4-item measure of personal well-being, adapted from the ONS Annual Population Survey (Michaelson et al., 2012; ONS, 2018). Each item of the ONS-4 focuses on a specific concept: life satisfaction, worthwhile life, happiness, and anxiety. For example, one item focused on life satisfaction asks ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?’ The ONS-4 is scored in the form of a rating scale from 0 (‘Not at all’) to 10 (‘Completely’). All four questions are independent and so internal reliability cannot be calculated.

Procedure

The survey was uploaded from Qualtrics to Prolific, a website utilised to recruit participants, in which they are financially rewarded for participating in research studies. Participants were made aware that this was a longitudinal study and that they would be asked to complete the survey at two different time points: the initial phase and a 6-week follow-up. Participation in this research was voluntary and after participants read the study information and consented to take part, they were asked to provide basic demographic information including age and gender. Participants were then asked to complete a series of questionnaires: Attitudes towards COVID-19, CORE-10, PERMA-Profiler, GAD-7 and ONS-4. Following the 6-week time period, participants were asked to complete the survey again. T1 responses were captured between 14–16 May and T2 responses were captured between 25th June and 15^th July. The attrition rate for this research was low at 11%. Participants were thanked for their time and were paid twice, for each survey completion. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Psychology Department at the University of Bolton, in line with British Psychological Society guidelines (BPS, 2018).

Statistical Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis was carried out on the newly devised ATC-19 scale to identify latent factors and evaluate validity and reliability. Paired samples t-test were carried out to investigate whether, and how, attitudes towards COVID-19 changed over 6 weeks in the early stages of the pandemic. To investigate whether, and how, psychological distress, anxiety, flourishing and personal well-being were affected during 6 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, paired samples t-tests were carried out. To explore the relationship between attitudes towards COVID-19 and mental health outcomes, correlational analyses were conducted.

3. Results

This study aimed to investigate how COVID-19 immediately effected university students in the UK. By conducting repeated measures research, this study also aimed to track the psychological impacts of COVID-19 over a 6-week time-period.

Factor Analysis

The 23 items of the Attitudes towards COVID-19 Scale were subjected to Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) using Direct Oblimin rotation. PAF was deemed the most appropriate technique of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify the least number of factors accounting for the common variance, of a set of variables. As the latent variables cannot be directly measured with a single variable, PAF was deemed more appropriate than other data reduction techniques, such as Principal Components Analysis (PCA). Thus, PAF was selected as the data reduction technique to reduce the 23-item scale into a number of latent variables. An oblique rotation method was selected as the rotation method, as the extracted factors are assumed to be correlated and so Direct Oblimin was used (Gorsuch, 1983). Prior to factor analysis, data checks were made to ensure the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was reported at .850, which exceeds the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant at <.001, again below the recommended value of .05 (Bartlett, 1954). Combined, these data suitability checks concluded that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Analysis revealed six factors with Eigen values greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1970). However, three factors were not supported by enough items and reported weak factor loadings, and were therefore dropped from the results and interpretation.

Table 2 demonstrates that three latent factors were found. (A) Fears and Anxieties about COVID-19, (b) Positivity in the COVID-19 Pandemic and (c) Loneliness in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sample size greatly effects factor loadings (Stevens, 2002). For sample sizes that exceed 1000, it is expected to accept factor loadings above .162 (Stevens, 2002), which is considerably lower than the factor loadings demonstrated in Table 2. While internal consistency estimates of >.80 were sought (Henson, 2001), Table 2 evidences that the internal consistency reliability for factor 2, is lower at .58.

Changes in Attitudes Towards COVID-19

To investigate whether attitudes towards COVID-19 changed during a 6-week period in the COVID-19 pandemic between May and June 2020, a series of paired samples t-test were conducted (see Table 3). Table 3 demonstrates that Fears and Anxieties about COVID-19 significantly decreased, with moderate effect (d = .32). Loneliness in the COVID-19 Pandemic decreased (d = .16). Finally, students became more positive about COVID-19 as time went on (d = .18). Effect sizes were calculated using the formula used by G*Power, for a within-subjects design (Lakens, 2013).

TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics for COVID-19 factors at two time points

	T1 N = 1281		T2 N = 1281		Sig.		Effect Size (Cohen’s d)
Factor	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
1.Fears and Anxieties about COVID-19	34.54	12.97	31.48	11.25	11.23	<.001	.32
2.Positivity in the COVID-19 Pandemic	16.18	5.82	14.28	5.98	6.33	<.001	.18
3.Loneliness in the COVID-19 Pandemic	16.60	7.07	15.74	7.06	5.61	<.001	.16

Notes: N = number of respondents. T1 was responses captured between 14–16 May, T2 was responses captured between 25^th June and 15^th July. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation.

Changes in Mental Health Outcomes during COVID-19

To investigate whether, and how, psychological distress, anxiety, flourishing and personal well-being were affected during 6 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, paired samples t-tests were carried out. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for each scale at both time points. Findings revealed that British university students have experienced a significant increase in psychological distress and reduced flourishing over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, symptoms of anxiety decreased, happiness levels improved, life satisfaction significantly increased. Ultimately, Table 4 suggests that overall well-being improved over a 6-week period (see Table 4).

TABLE 4. Descriptive statistics for psychological distress, anxiety, flourishing and personal well-being at two time points

	T1 N = 1281		T2 N = 1281		Sig.		Effect Size (Cohen’s d)
Measure	M	SD	M	SD	t	p
Psychological Distress	13.92	7.35	15.31	5.91	−8.835	<.001	.25
Anxiety	7.76	5.26	6.90	4.99	8.025	<.001	.23
Flourishing	101.57	25.45	100.46	26.47	2.551	<.05	.07
Life satisfaction	5.79	2.17	6.02	2.16	−4.711	<.001	.13
Worthwhile life	6.05	2.32	6.11	2.30	−1.143	.253	.03
Happiness Yesterday	5.85	2.39	6.43	2.40	−7.973	<.001	.23
Anxiety Yesterday	5.43	2.81	4.00	2.85	10.643	<.001	.29

Notes: N = number of respondents. T1 was responses captured between 14–16 May, T2 was responses captured between 25^th June and 15^th July. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation.

On the other hand, when compared to pre-pandemic normative data, university students are still experiencing extremely poor mental health (see Table 5). Such that, levels of psychological distress (Barkham et al., 2013), anxiety (Jordan et al., 2017), flourishing (Butler and Kern, 2016) and personal well-being (ONS Annual Figures 2019–2020) are considerably poor when compared to normative data from before COVID-19. However, when compared to normative data captured during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are little differences (see Table 5). That is, university students mental health is similar to that of the general population at the earlier stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

TABLE 5. Mental health comparisons from T1 and T2 to pre-pandemic and pandemic normative data

Measure	T1 Mean	T2 Mean	Pre-pandemic Normative Mean	Pandemic Normative Mean (general population)
Psychological Distress (CORE-10)	13.92	15.31	4.70	12.82
Anxiety (GAD-7)	7.76	6.90	4.70	6.59
Flourishing (PERMA)	101.57	100.46	114.33	101.47
Life satisfaction (ONS)	5.79	6.02	7.69	6.11
Life Worth (ONS)	6.05	6.11	7.88	6.55
Happiness Yesterday (ONS)	5.85	6.43	7.54	5.48
Anxiety Yesterday (ONS)	5.43	4.00	2.91	5.35

Notes: Pandemic Normative data for CORE-10, PERMA and ONS4 were captured using a general population sample of 1608 British adults in March 2020. Pandemic Normative data for GAD-7 was taken from a general population study of 3097 British Adults in April 2020.

The Effects of COVID-19 on Psychological Well-being

To determine whether attitudes towards COVID-19 were related to mental health outcomes, correlational analyses were carried out (see Table 6). Findings showed that fears and anxieties about the COVID-19 pandemic was positively related to psychological distress and anxiety, while it was negatively associated with life satisfaction, life worth and happiness. Loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic was positively associated with psychological distress and anxiety, and it was negatively associated with life satisfaction, life worth, happiness and flourishing. Finally, positivity during the COVID-19 pandemic was positively associated with life satisfaction, life worth, happiness and flourishing, while it was negatively associated with psychological distress.

TABLE 6. Correlation analysis between the COVID-19 factors and university students’ psychological well-being

COVID-19 Factors	Psychological Distress Score	Anxiety Score	Flourishing Score	Life Satisfaction Score	Life Worth Score	Happiness Yesterday Score	Anxiety Yesterday Score
Fear and Anxieties about COVID-19	.455**	.485**	−.049	−.083**	−.071*	−.123**	−.372**
Loneliness in COVID-19	.401**	.343**	−.111**	−.198**	−.113**	−.200**	−.234**
Positivity in COVID-19	−.108**	−.030	.153**	.155**	.132**	.156**	.061*

* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3. Discussion

Changes in University Student’s Mental Health

Data analysis identified that after 6 weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic, psychological distress increased. These findings gain support from research that reported increased ‘psychiatric caseness’ in a group of young adults (Daly et al., 2020). It was also shown that in previous confinement experiments, significant psychological effects occurred (Hawryluck et al., 2004). Similarly, levels of flourishing among British university students decreased. Reduced flourishing was expected, as university students have been left unable to meet the criteria for flourishing mental health (Seligman, 2011). After all, loneliness and social isolation, which is the reality for all at this time, are linked to lower levels of flourishing (Diener et al., 2009).

Findings appeared somewhat contradictory. Indeed, over a 6-week period psychological distress and flourishing worsened, while anxiety and overall well-being improved. Students reported reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction and life worth, and higher levels of happiness felt yesterday after 6 weeks. This concurs with recent research that found levels of anxiety and depression began to reduce in early June as lockdown measures were relaxed in the UK (Fancourt et al., 2020a). Also, when students completed the survey for a second time (T2), the UK had undergone numerous changes. Social distancing measures were relaxed, high streets were starting to operate again and people were adjusting to the ‘new normal’. In addition, nationwide testing was underway and home testing kits had become available. This may have helped to reduce feelings of anxiety and public worry about catching the virus or infecting loved ones (Bao et al., 2020). Likewise, personal protective equipment (PPE), such as face masks, had become more readily available, which was likely to impact fears and anxieties about the virus (Ayittey et al., 2020). Improved overall well-being between T1 and T2 could be, in part, explained by an improvement in attitudes about COVID-19 over the 6-week period. Over time, we gained more knowledge of COVID-19 and its impact on a personal level, as well as within our communities and globally. Even though everyday life had changed drastically, living through the COVID-19 pandemic was becoming the ‘new normal’.

While there was evidence for improved mental health between two time points, scores at both time points were still significantly out with the normal range when compared to pre-pandemic normative data. However, it is not surprising that a national health pandemic will generate heightened mental health problems, due to the profound uncertainty and disruption to routine life (Fancourt et al., 2020a; Hill and Burrow, 2020). Particularly, these findings gain support from research that argues. However, when comparing university students scores to normative data from the general population taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were little differences.

How Do Attitudes Towards COVID-19 Influence Student Mental Health?

Findings reported increased fears, anxieties and loneliness during the pandemic were related to worse mental health outcomes, such as increased psychological distress and anxiety alongside reduced flourishing, life satisfaction, life worth and happiness. We already know that loneliness and social isolation can have detrimental impacts on physical and mental well-being (Cacioppo and Cacioppo, 2014). A lack of interpersonal communication and social support is known to elevate the likelihood of developing symptoms of anxiety (Kmietowicz, 2020). More specifically, social support was reported to be negatively correlated with university students’ anxiety (Chen et al., 2020). Current findings strengthen recent research that indicated loneliness, as a result of social isolation, has become a precursor for deteriorated mental health problems (Marshall et al., 2020). This is expected as healthy and effective social support networks are essential, especially throughout public health emergencies (Gegan and Hai, 2005).

Current findings showed that positivity during the COVID-19 pandemic increased. An increasingly positive outlook about COVID-19 meant students believed that the pandemic has been a positive experience, that it offers an opportunity for communities to come together and is ultimately a blessing in disguise for the human race and their environment. This was linked to better mental health outcomes for students. For instance, a positive outlook of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in lesser reports of psychological distress and anxiety, as well as increased flourishing, life satisfaction, life worth and happiness. Many have revealed positive experiences throughout these unprecedented times, such as cooperating with and helping others in the community, which encourages a sense of togetherness and instils great satisfaction (WHO, 2020). People have the ability to convert tough experiences into a great opportunity to develop a sense of purpose (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004), which is a powerful resource and protective factor amidst a crisis such as COVID-19 (White, 2020). Helping students to recognise the positives produced by the pandemic could be hugely beneficial towards their mental health and ultimately act as a protective factor against the onset of severe mental illness.

Study Limitations

This study utilised an online survey where data was collected through self-report measures. Consequently, this study faces limitations around social desirability (Larson, 2019). Nevertheless, psychological research is dominated by self-report measures and this seemed the most appropriate method of data collection amidst a global health pandemic.

Participation in this research was rewarded with financial gain. Each participant received £1.50 for completing the online survey, which took an average of 12 minutes to complete. Offering payment to participants for taking part in online research is a common practice (Largent and Fernandez Lynch, 2017) and offering financial reward for participating in research, has been deemed ethically acceptably when taking into consideration the amount, mechanism, timing and context of that payment (Fry et al., 2006). Also, using Prolific makes it possible to review the individual submissions to reject ones that are potentially inadequate or inconsistent. For instance, submissions that are completed ‘too quickly’.

A large proportion of the study sample was female (68.5%). However, this was expected due to the unequal gender balance apparent in higher education (Hillman and Robinson, 2016). Females are also more likely to participate in online research (Mulder and de Bruijne, 2019). In order to achieve generalisability, a large sample size was required due to the target population of British university students being over 2 million. With a desired accuracy with confidence level of 99% and a margin of error at ± 5 a population size of 1 million would require a sample of 660 (Gill and Johnson, 2010; Taherdoost, 2017). The current study had 1281 British university student participants and so we argue that the current findings are broadly generalizable to the university student population in the UK.

Practical Implications and Recommendations for Future Research

Current findings give more insight into what university students in the UK are experiencing, how COVID-19 has impacted their mental well-being and how their perceptions of COVID-19 and changes to their mental health have occurred over a 6-week period. While demand for support services at universities has drastically risen, traditional forms of mental health provision at universities, such as face-to-face counselling services, have been pushed online. Increased awareness and demand for student mental health services has pushed universities to offer additional support such as online chats, wellbeing workshops, activities and resources. It is unclear what support the studied students were receiving, if any, and how accessed support services were influencing their mental health outcomes. Further exploration of this is crucial to determine the effectiveness and feasibility of mental health provision within Higher Education. Nonetheless, support is vital and mental health promotion should be a top priority of higher education institutions (HEIs). Emphasis should be placed upon providing mental health support to help students cope with stress and anxiety throughout the pandemic. Support and counselling services at universities should be expanded and adapted to meet the evolving physical, emotional and social needs of university students during the pandemic and beyond.

The potential long-term mental health implications are vast and universities must be equipped to support a population of young people who have increasingly developed mental health problems during the pandemic. HEIs must offer mental health provision to combat any long-term issues. There has been concern that increased mental illness is so much more than an adaptive response to the unprecedented pandemic; instead, a mental health decline through elevated levels of anxiety, psychological distress and loneliness could represent the onset of more protracted mental health problems that persist beyond the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kwong et al., 2020). As it stands, universities need to do more to promote mental health and make support available to students during the lockdown and beyond. Further research is crucial to help us understand the long-term mental health implications of COVID-19 on student mental well-being.

This research focuses on the psychological impacts of COVID-19, but it is uncertain how academic engagement and educational challenges have changed the picture on mental health. Not only are university students experiencing the health, financial and psychological burdens of the epidemic, but they have also faced disruption to their education (World Universities Network (WUN), 2020). Previous research has shown that disruption to education can produce a variety of issues related to reduced motivation, loss of independence, detrimental effects on self-identity and mental health, which all limit the growth of students (Cao et al., 2020; Odriozola-González et al., 2020). We can expect that the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to disrupt education and further research is needed to provide clarity on what the implications are for student academic engagement and education in general.

5. Conclusion

Between May and June 2020, restrictions began to ease, social distancing rules were relaxed, nationwide testing became available and public understanding of the virus was growing. Subsequently, fear and anxiety about the pandemic and feelings of loneliness decreased over time. Students also began to report a more positive outlook about the pandemic. These can partly offer an explanation for an overall improvement in well-being over a 6-week period. Although mental health improvements were observed between the two time points, they were still considerably below the norm.

As expected, fears and anxieties about COVID-19 and loneliness during the pandemic were strongly linked to poorer mental health outcomes. It was also found that positivity during the COVID-19 pandemic, to an extent, acted as a protective factor against severe mental illness. Reinforcing better mental health practices and offering positive psychological interventions to university students should remain a top priority as it could potentially prevent the onset of short and long-term mental illness and guide them to more advantageous outcomes. The long-term implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on student well-being and education are not yet understood. It could be suggested that positive psychology interventions that constitute a positive mindset and outlook could protect students from lasting effects. The pandemic will likely cause long-standing changes to education and it is not yet certain how this will implicate academic engagement, educational outcomes and career prospects.

8. Author contributions

CK and JC conceptualised and designed the research. CK secured funding for the research. RA collected data, organised the database, conducted statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the article. MV led the development of the ATC-19 scale. JC supervised the research. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.

6. Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Bolton [N/A].