The research team, led by Pal Banda of Széchenyi István University in Hungary alongside colleagues from Technological University of the Shannon in Ireland, conducted their search in December 2023 across three major databases: Scopus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. Following the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines, they identified 5,997 records, removed 3,443 duplicates, and then filtered the remaining 2,554 studies through a series of eligibility criteria. Studies had to be published between 2015 and 2023, written in English, and focus on stress management interventions within higher education settings. Systematic reviews and feasibility studies were excluded because the team wanted to synthesize evidence from primary empirical research. After this rigorous winnowing, 32 publications made the final cut.

The timeframe was not arbitrary. The authors anchored their starting point to 2015, two years after two landmark policy initiatives launched: the Joint Action for Mental Health and Wellbeing, which brought together 51 partners from 28 EU Member States, and the World Health Organization’s Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan. Both, they reasoned, reshaped how institutions think about mental health support, so research published after 2015 would capture the most current landscape of intervention strategies.

What emerged from the analysis was a striking imbalance. Of the 32 studies, the overwhelming majority targeted students, examining outcomes like perceived stress, anxiety, depression, mindfulness, resilience, and help-seeking behavior. Only a handful focused on university staff—and even those tended to measure occupational outcomes such as job stress, psychological strain, burnout, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment rather than broader mental wellbeing. This split suggests that students and staff face fundamentally different stressors and therefore need different kinds of support, yet the evidence base for employee-focused programs is thin at best.

The interventions themselves fell into five broad categories. Traditional therapeutic approaches included stress management training, suicide prevention gatekeeper training, and rational-emotive health education. Technology-based interventions were the largest group, encompassing self-managed online mindfulness programs, web-based stress management courses, internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy, web-based acceptance and commitment therapy, telephone crisis support, embodied conversational agents, and mobile health apps. Lifestyle-based interventions ranged from physical activity programs to participation in cultural and artistic activities and even exposure to urban green spaces. Social and community interventions included awareness-raising initiatives and peer mentoring, while alternative and complementary approaches covered everything from biofeedback and attention training to five-element music therapy, biodanza, and yoga.

When the researchers assessed which approaches actually worked, two stood out. Mindfulness-based interventions and cognitive behavioral therapy-based approaches demonstrated the most consistent positive outcomes across the reviewed studies. Interventions backed by randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias provided the strongest evidence for reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. By contrast, interventions evaluated through cross-sectional or non-randomized designs offered less conclusive results. Specific studies reinforced this picture: one trial found that stress management training for medical students reduced both physical complaints and psychological distress, while another showed that combining cognitive behavioral therapy with yoga reduced job stress among university lecturers in Nigeria. A large cross-sectional study in China involving nearly 12,000 students found a significant positive correlation between engagement in cultural and artistic activities and heightened life satisfaction.

Methodological rigor varied considerably across the evidence base. The team evaluated 22 randomized controlled trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, which examines five domains including randomization, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and selection of reported results. Ten trials earned a low risk of bias rating, five raised some concerns, and seven were judged high risk, requiring cautious interpretation. For the ten non-randomized studies, assessed with the ROBINS-I tool across seven domains, seven carried a serious risk of bias, largely due to confounding and selection issues. Several studies relied on small samples—some as few as 16 participants—while others lacked control groups or used waitlist controls that may introduce bias. Gender imbalances appeared in multiple studies, and many failed to conduct follow-up assessments, making it impossible to determine whether any benefits lasted beyond the immediate post-intervention period.

Another limitation was the heavy reliance on self-report measures. Most studies assessed outcomes using validated questionnaires such as the Perceived Stress Scale, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Only a small number supplemented these subjective measures with objective data like salivary cortisol assessment, plasma cortisol analysis, computerized performance tasks, or qualitative interview analysis. Because so much of the evidence depends on participants’ own perceptions of their stress levels, the authors note that reporting biases could affect the robustness of the findings. The heterogeneity across intervention types, study designs, durations, and outcome measures was so substantial that a quantitative meta-analysis proved impossible; the team instead conducted a narrative synthesis.

Geography also emerged as a blind spot. Although the included studies spanned countries including China, the United States, Nigeria, Australia, India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Spain, Turkey, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, most interventions were concentrated in Western contexts. Notably, no studies came from Central and Eastern Europe, a region the authors highlight as critically underrepresented. This geographic bias raises questions about whether findings from Western universities can be generalized to institutions with different educational systems, cultural norms, and socioeconomic conditions. The authors argue that future research must incorporate more diverse settings to ensure intervention strategies are relevant and applicable globally.

The review’s conclusions carry practical weight for university administrators and policymakers. Mindfulness-based and cognitive behavioral approaches currently represent the most promising evidence-based strategies for stress management in higher education, consistent with earlier meta-analyses by Regehr and colleagues, Amanvermez and colleagues, and Worsley and colleagues. But the authors stress that expanding the evidence base beyond student populations is essential. Staff wellbeing is not a peripheral concern—it directly affects institutional functioning, teaching quality, and ultimately student outcomes. As universities continue to grapple with rising mental health demands, the message from this review is clear: a truly comprehensive approach must serve the entire academic community, not just its students, and it must be grounded in research that reflects the full diversity of global higher education.

Subject of Research: Stress management interventions and mental wellbeing support in higher education institutions

Article Title: Assessing the availability and impact of stress management interventions at higher education institutions: a systematic review

Article References: Banda, P., Czako, K., & Maughan, G. (2026). Assessing the availability and impact of stress management interventions at higher education institutions: a systematic review. Public Health Reviews, 47, Article 1607815. https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2026.1607815

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/phrs.2026.1607815

Keywords: stress management, higher education, mental health, mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, student wellbeing, staff wellbeing, systematic review, burnout, workplace stress, PRISMA, risk of bias