Category: health & wellbeing

  • There’s no magic wand for student wellbeing

    There’s no magic wand for student wellbeing

    At a conference in the mid-2010s an American colleague described UK student services and support as “an emerging profession.” He was wrong: universities have always supported students beyond the classroom. From Oxford dons to Bologna priests, pastoral care was never a bolt-on or mission drift. It was a crucial part of enabling students, especially those from challenging backgrounds, to succeed.

    Where he may have been right was in the contrast between his side of the Atlantic and mine. The United States has built structured, well-resourced systems of student support, while in the UK our approach remains patchy and ill defined. A decade later, demand has continued to grow exponentially. Expectations are higher, university services are stretched, and public health provision is thinner.

    The Hogwarts problem

    Have universities become places where students expect to be looked after as much as taught? At times, it feels that way. Today many students’, and their parents’, earliest frame of reference for support in a residential education setting comes from what they saw or read happen for Harry Potter.

    Students paying fees understandably expect a full package: excellent teaching, clear employment prospects, and a safety net that catches every wobble in closed, secure setting, with or without owls.

    On top of that, many of today’s students have grown up talking openly about mental health on Instagram, TikTok, and in group chats. That cultural shift is a win for stigma reduction, and means more students are willing to ask for help in a context where expectations were already increased.

    Add in a more diverse student body, and the equation is simple: higher expectations + greater volume and diversity of students + greater willingness to express need = demand growing exponentially.

    At the sharpest end, universities are managing cases of student suicide, with all of its devastating consequences for families, friends and staff. The stakes could not be higher.

    We are also picking up the pieces from past cuts elsewhere. In Wales and England cuts to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) since 2010 mean many students are arriving at university with needs that have not been addressed before.

    The opportunity to get it right

    Providers across all four UK nations and beyond are grappling with the same pressures. The answer lies not in expending capacity and energy on demonstrative quality marks and badges, but in creating real-world systemic change rooted in regulation, leadership, defined boundaries, curriculum design, and rapid adoption of AI.

    Make mental health a strategic priority: The first step is leadership. Mental health and wellbeing must be owned at the highest level of every university. The Universities UK Stepchange framework made this clear in 2016, and it still holds true today. Vice chancellors and governing bodies need to lead visible strategies, set measurable goals, and proactively monitor progress.

    This is not about box-ticking. It is about embedding wellbeing in strategy so decisions about teaching, estates, finance, and partnerships all factor it in, just like they do health and safety. This commitment sends a powerful signal: facilitating good mental health is not peripheral. It is part of the core mission and enables better outcomes.

    This needs to be set against formal regulation with common terminology, standards and risk measures; moving beyond the voluntary and variance we see now, setting common boundaries to what the sector provides and what can be expected for all.

    Set boundaries and build healthcare partnerships: Universities are not healthcare providers, and pretending otherwise is not sustainable. Equally, it is not realistic to say “this is not our role.” Students and their families, often in crisis, need a sympathetic explanation of what support universities can and cannot provide, and a clear route to accessible health services.

    That means developing formal partnerships with health providers. The South East Wales Mental Health Partnership shows what is possible. Since 2019 this partnership has been creating bespoke referral pathways, training university staff in triage, and coordinating with NHS colleagues. The partnership has managed demand while helping the NHS plan for the pressure created by a time-limited, transient student population.

    The structures of health services differ across the four UK nations, but the approach is transferable. Formal, regional partnerships are the only sustainable way to respond.

    Embed wellbeing in the curriculum: Wellbeing can be built into curriculum design in ways that both support students and improve academic outcomes. Group projects foster connection and reduce isolation. Linking assignments to real-world challenges boosts motivation. Even something as simple as coordinating deadlines across modules can contribute to a healthier, more balanced experience. Peer support can be impactful for everyone involved.

    This reflects what many modern workplaces already expect: collaboration, resilience, and balance. Embedding wellbeing into learning design is part of preparing students for life after graduation.

    Use AI wisely: Around 80 per cent of teenagers aged 13–17 have used generative AI tools like ChatGPT. In developed economies there is growing evidence that this demographic will look to AI for emotional support with good outcomes, so it seems clear future students will look to AI first for help. A response which ensures strained provision adapts to demand change is critical.

    Handled properly, AI could transform student services. Chatbots can answer routine questions, signpost students to resources, and triage requests before they reach staff. This is not an opportunity to cut spending; it is an opportunity to repurpose skilled staff enabling focus on the most complex cases and multi-agency referrals, or in other words, the work where human expertise is most impactful.

    The danger is that we repeat past sector mistakes: commissioning bespoke systems slowly and at high cost. Instead, universities should move quickly to adopt and embed proven tools ensuring people, not algorithms, make the biggest difference.

    What’s next?

    Universities aren’t Hogwarts – and they need to be explicit about what they can and cannot do. It is possible to do this in a positive way and work with partners to build systems that meet new demand appropriately.

    That means leadership taking a proactive strategic approach, clear and compassionate boundaries, embedding wellbeing in the curriculum, and smart use of AI to manage resource and demand. It also means governments in each part of the UK moving beyond voluntary, third-party charters – to frameworks with teeth.

    Without that shift, staff will continue to be asked for miracles without a wand, and universities will continue to be held responsible when those miracles don’t happen.

    Source link

  • It is high time higher education adopted a harm reduction approach to drug use among students

    It is high time higher education adopted a harm reduction approach to drug use among students

    While Gen Z is showing less interest in the normalised alcohol and drug excess that dogged their preceding generations, England and Wales’ most recent stats confirmed that 16.5 per cent of people aged between 16 to 24-years-old took an illegal drug in the last year.

    Additionally, a 2024 report by Universities UK found that 18 per cent of students have used a drug in the past with 12 per cent imbibing across the previous 12 months. With a UK student population of 2.9m, this suggests the drug-savvy portion is around 348,000 to 522,000 people.

    It’s prudent, therefore, for anyone involved within student safety provision to know that the UK is currently mired in a drug death crisis – a record 5,448 fatalities were recorded in England and Wales in the most recent statistics, while Scotland had 1,172, the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe.

    In an attempt to ameliorate some of this risk, seven UK universities recently took delivery of nitazene strips to distribute among students, facilitated by the charity Students Organising for Sustainability (SOS-UK). These instant testing kits – not dissimilar to a Covid-19 lateral flow test in appearance – examine pills or powders for nitazenes: a class of often deadly synthetic opioids linked with 458 UK deaths between July 2023 and December 2024.

    While these fatalities will have most likely been amongst older, habitual users of heroin or fake prescription medicines, these strips form part of a suite of innovative solutions aimed at helping students stay safe(r) if they do choose to use drugs.

    The 2024 Universities UK report suggested drug checking and education as an option in reducing drug-related harm, and recommended a harm reduction approach, adding: “A harm reduction approach does not involve condoning or seeking to normalise the use of drugs. Instead, it aims to minimise the harms which may occur if students take drugs.”

    With that in mind, let’s consider a world where harm reduction – instead of zero tolerance – is the de facto policy and how drug checking or drug testing plays a part in that.

    Drug checking and drug testing

    Drug checking and drug testing are terms that often get used interchangeably but have different meanings. Someone using a drug checking service can get expert lab-level substance analysis, for contents and potency, then a confidential consultation on these results during which they receive harm reduction advice. In the UK, this service is offered by The Loop, a non-profit NGO that piloted drug checking at festivals in 2016 and now have a monthly city centre service in Bristol.

    Drug testing can take different forms. First, there is the analysis of a biological sample to detect whether a person has taken drugs, typically done in a workplace or medical setting. There are also UK-based laboratories offering substance analysis, that then gets relaid to the public in different ways.

    WEDINOS is an anonymous service, run by Public Health Wales since 2013, where users send a small sample of their substance alongside a downloadable form. After testing, WEDINOS posts the results on their website (in regards to content but not potency) normally within a few weeks.

    MANDRAKE is a laboratory operating out of Manchester Metropolitan University. It works in conjunction with key local stakeholders to test found or seized substances in the area. It is often first with news regarding adulterated batches of drugs or dangerously high-strength substances on the market.

    Domestic testing is also possible with reagents tests. These are legally acquired chemical compounds that change colour when exposed to specific drugs and can be used at home. They can provide valuable information as to the composition of a pill or powder but do not provide information on potency. The seven UK universities that took delivery of nitazene strips were already offering reagents kits to students as part of their harm reduction rationale.

    Although the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 specifies that certain activities must not be allowed to take place within a university setting, the Universities UK report argued that universities have some discretion on how to manage this requirement. Specifically, it stated: “The law does not require universities to adopt a zero tolerance approach to student drug use.”

    How to dispense testing apparatus

    The mechanisms differ slightly between SUs but have broad similarities. We spoke with Newcastle and Leeds (NUSU and LUU) who both offer Reagent Tests UK reagent testing kits, fentanyl strips and now nitazene strips. Reagent’s UK kits do not test for either of these two synthetic opioids. They vary in strength compared to heroin – and there are multiple analogues of nitazene that vary in potency – but an established ballpark figure is at least 50 times as strong.

    All kits and tests are free. Newcastle’s are available from the Welfare and Support centre, in an area where students would have to take part in an informal chat with a member of staff to procure a kit. “We won’t ask for personal details. However, we do monitor this and will check in with a welfare chat if we think this would be helpful,” says Kay Hattam, Wellbeing and Safeguarding Specialist at NUSU. At Leeds, they’re available from the Advice Office and no meeting is required to collect a kit.

    Harm reduction material is offered alongside the kits. “We have developed messaging to accompany kits which is clear on the limitations of drug testing, and that testing does not make drugs safe to use,” says Leeds University Union.

    Before the donation, kits were both paid for by the respective unions and neither formally collected data on the results. Both SUs both make clear that offering these kits is not an encouragement of drug use. Kay Hattam draws an analogy: “If someone was eating fast food every day and I mentioned ways to reduce the risks associated with this, would they feel encouraged to eat more? I would think not. But it might make them think more about the risks.”

    You’ll only encourage them

    In 2022, in a report for HEPI, Arda Ozcubukcu and Graham Towl argued, “Drug use matters may be much more helpfully integrated into mental health and wellbeing strategies, rather than being viewed as a predominantly criminal justice issue.”

    The evidence backs up the view that a harm reduction approach does not encourage drug use. A 2021 report authored by The Loop’s co-founder Fiona Measham, Professor in Criminology at the University of Liverpool, found that over half of The Loop’s users disposed of a substance that tested differently to their intended purchase, reducing the risk of poisoning. Additionally, three months after checking their drugs at a festival, around 30 per cent of users reported being more careful about polydrug use (mixing substances). One in five users were taking smaller doses of drugs overall. Not only does this demonstrate that better knowledge reduces risk of poisoning in the short-term, but it also has enduring positive impacts on drug-using behaviours.

    SOS-UK has developed the Drug and Alcohol Impact scheme with 16 universities and students’ unions participating. This programme supports institutions in implementing the Universities UK guidance by using a variety of approaches to educate and support students in a non-stigmatising manner.

    Alongside them is SafeCourse, a charity founded by Hilton Mervis after his son Daniel, an Oxford University student, died from an overdose in 2019. The charity – which counts the High Court judge Sir Robin Knowles and John de Pury, who led the development of the 2024 sector harm reduction framework, among its trustees – is working to encourage universities to move away from zero tolerance.This is through various means, including commissioning legal advice to provide greater clarity on universities’ liability if they are not adopting best practice, and checking in one year on from the Universities UK report, to ascertain how they’re adapting to the new era of harm reduction.

    SafeCourse takes the view that universities must not allow themselves to be caught up prosecuting a failed war on drugs when their focus should be student safety, wellbeing and success. A harm reduction approach is the best way of achieving those ends.

    Source link

  • From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

    From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

    Higher education institutions are increasingly acknowledging the importance of wellbeing in shaping meaningful and sustainable learning experiences. However, the wellbeing of students and staff is often treated as a separate or secondary issue, addressed through isolated initiatives rather than embedded into the fabric of university life.

    I propose adopting a lifelong approach to wellbeing in education grounded in appreciating that schools and universities are not distinct spheres. Rather, they are stages on a continuous educational journey. The way we foster wellbeing in schools must inform, and align with, our practices in higher education.

    Foundations for wellbeing

    The foundations laid in schools play a crucial role in shaping how learners experience their transition into university. When educational environments nurture emotional resilience, social connection, and inclusive responses to academic pressures, learners arrive in higher education with a stronger base of support. In contrast, when wellbeing is not prioritised earlier in the educational journey, the structural and emotional demands of university life can amplify existing challenges. This underscores the need for continuity and care across the educational continuum, rather than placing responsibility on individuals to adapt alone.

    In many school systems, wellbeing is increasingly recognised as integral to education. A holistic, strengths-based approach helps ensure that wellbeing is supported through curriculum design, teaching practices, and whole-school approaches and policies. Programmes focused on social and emotional learning are embedded, and collaboration across sectors – education, health, and community – creates a network of support that extends beyond the classroom.

    In higher education, this picture is evolving. The work on wellbeing spearheaded by Universities UK in recent years has helped universities to become more attuned to the importance of wellbeing, yet academic culture often remains shaped by competitiveness, performance metrics, and output-driven models. This dynamic also influences schools in some contexts, particularly where high stakes testing and narrow accountability frameworks dominate. However, there tends to be greater acceptance within schools that wellbeing and learning are deeply interconnected.

    In the university context, structural pressures, including institutional expectations and the demands of competitive academic cultures, continue to affect both students and staff, contributing to stress, burnout, and mental health difficulties. Although there is growing attention to student wellbeing in policy and strategy, support for staff wellbeing remains less visible, despite its clear influence on teaching quality and the wider learning environment. There is a need for a joined-up, systemic approach recognising the interdependence of student and staff wellbeing.

    Whole institution approaches

    A whole-university approach, as promoted by Universities UK, is a strategic, institution-wide commitment to embedding wellbeing into every dimension of university life, echoing the well-established whole-school model in many primary and secondary education systems. Just as whole-school approaches integrate wellbeing into teaching, leadership, curriculum, and engagement with families and communities, a whole-university approach ensures that wellbeing is not confined to support services or stand-alone initiatives. It becomes a shared responsibility, woven into the ethos, governance, and daily practices of the institution.

    Rather than relying on reactive services, this model positions wellbeing as a core value that shapes leadership, curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional relationships. It calls for cultural transformation, redefining success to focus not solely on outcomes, but on flourishing. This includes embedding wellbeing in teaching and assessment, professional development, work-life balance, and inclusive, compassionate organisational values. It requires systems that promote flexibility, equity, and psychological safety as the norm.

    Universities must be understood as ecosystems. When this ecosystem is well, everyone within it is more likely to thrive. This involves designing curricula that support engagement and wellbeing, adopting inclusive policies, and nurturing cultures of trust, care, and belonging in both academic and administrative contexts.

    Higher education can also learn from the progress made in schools. Many school systems have already developed comprehensive frameworks for promoting wellbeing – such as the Health Promoting Schools model – which successfully embed wellbeing into governance, pedagogy, and wider school life. Higher education has much to gain from adapting these models to its own settings, helping to ensure continuity of support as learners move between sectors.

    Embedding wellbeing through national frameworks

    Aligning approaches across schools and universities creates a more cohesive experience for learners and reduces the sense of disorientation that often accompanies educational transitions. It also enables valuable exchange between sectors, where shared learning can lead to better outcomes for all.

    Within this context, and especially given the significance of the transition from school to university, national leadership is essential in embedding wellbeing consistently across education systems. The move into higher education is more than a change of setting; it is a profound developmental shift, often marked by increased autonomy, identity exploration, and academic complexity. While this transition can be exciting, it also brings vulnerability and emotional strain. Maintaining wellbeing support across this bridge is therefore not optional; it is essential. Yet it is precisely at this stage that inconsistencies and gaps often emerge. National policies that intentionally bridge sectors can ensure wellbeing remains a continuous thread throughout a learner’s journey.

    One crucial aspect of national leadership is the development of robust policy and strategy relating to wellbeing, both within institutions and at a broader, systemic level. Country-wide initiatives create coherence, consistency, and a shared vision – particularly important when seeking to strengthen the links between schools and universities. Ireland, for instance, has implemented a national policy and strategy around mental health that spans multiple sectors, not just education. This kind of joined-up approach exemplifies how public policy can help to sustain cultural change across the education system and beyond.

    The wellbeing of our educational communities is not a peripheral concern. It is central to the very purpose of education. By embedding wellbeing across every level – through policy, pedagogy, leadership, and institutional culture – we not only support individuals to succeed, but also help to build resilient, compassionate institutions where everyone can flourish.

    Source link

  • Asking students about the challenges they face

    Asking students about the challenges they face

    Increasing numbers of undergraduate students are either neurodivergent or living with a mental health condition, and in some cases both – but their voices aren’t being heard.

    Departments know that these students face particular challenges in their academic studies, but struggle with how to best support them, especially given pressures to do more with fewer resources. University lecturers are also growing more familiar with these conditions, either because of their own personal experience, or because of greater cultural awareness and openness around neurodivergence and mental illness. All of us in the MINOTAUR team have lived experience ourselves or loved ones living with neurodivergence and mental illness, which has informed our approach to this work.

    One way universities have tried to adapt to this change in their student populations has been by issuing support agreements through their disability services team, but these are often very general and don’t always address the actual challenges individual students are facing. We know that this lack of support is having a negative impact on student experiences and academic outcomes.

    Student voice

    The MINOTAUR project (Mental Illness and NeurOdiversiTy Academic sUppoRt), run out of the classics department at Royal Holloway, University of London, grew out of an EDI survey which identified a significant population of students in the department who were neurodivergent and/or living with mental illness. We then ran a series of student focus groups in summer 2023 to identify issues facing these students and solutions the department could implement in order to improve their experience as learners.

    As far as we know, it is the first time that focus groups have been used to ask this diverse community of students about their experiences during their degrees – within Royal Holloway, within our discipline, and quite possibly within HE. Certainly there are no easily visible parallel initiatives in the sector. The recommendations we made following these discussions have been simple and easy to implement, and we know they’ve made a great deal of difference to our student cohort.

    So, in an age where the student voice has become a critical part of university life, why do these students often go unheard?

    A literature review carried out this summer with the support of the RHUL School of Humanities Scholarship and Innovation Fund confirmed our suspicion that interventions for students with neurodivergence and mental illness are typically being done to students rather than shaped by them. This review sampled a wide range of work and resources aimed at supporting university and school students with ADHD, autism, other forms of neurodivergence and mental illness. These studies largely took the form of designing an intervention, implementing it, and considering its effectiveness. There seemed to be few attempts at co-creation, co-design, or co-production.

    However, our experience with the first stage of MINOTAUR suggests that not asking students to identify the challenges they are facing and how these might be addressed means we are missing some simple, low-effort, high-effect interventions that can offer immediate support. In the longer term, it also means that those who design interventions address the problems that they can see, not the problems that students are experiencing.

    Simplicity is a virtue

    Studies indicate that increasing self-knowledge and self-advocacy skills among neurodivergent students can contribute to positive academic outcomes. Through applying principles of co-design, we can empower students to take ownership of their learning while ensuring that any interventions address their real needs. This may be particularly impactful for students without a formal diagnosis, who may not be eligible for support within existing university systems. Co-design can also increase community buy-in to projects and interventions, which is essential as part of supporting a cohort of students who are more likely to become disengaged and isolated when facing challenges.

    One great example of this for MINOTAUR has been an intervention so simple that we wouldn’t have thought of it without talking to our students. As a department, we have a reputation for being supportive and understanding for students living with neurodivergence and mental illness, but as staff we had taken it as a given that our new students would automatically realise this. Last year, we introduced a simple slide titled “Neurodiversity in Classics”, to be shown at the start of each new module.

    It emphasises that we want students to be able to learn, and uses three bullet points designed to lower the barriers to our students’ learning. “Better late than absent” reduces the anxiety of being five or ten minutes late to a class session, which can throw off attendance for a whole term. “Tell us about the room” gives students permission to tell us about sensory disruptors; having to concentrate on processing an overwhelming physical stimulus, like a flickering light, that can distract focus from teaching. “We understand about stimming,” referring to repetitive physical actions often made by people with autism, makes it explicit that students can fidget and move in ways which help them concentrate rather than struggling to repress those habits for an hour.

    We simply hadn’t realised how much work our students were putting in to trying to meet expectations we didn’t have of them. Without consultation, we wouldn’t have known how effective this simple intervention could be – and it has made a huge difference to our students, especially first years joining the department.

    It’s all about participation

    Low-impact adjustments designed for neurodivergent students and students living with mental health issues can often be valuable in supporting the learning of neurotypical students too. Following the focus groups’ recommendations, many of us more systematically introduced a break in lectures to avoid students’ cognitive overload, and to allow them to refresh their minds around halfway through the lecture. Even if the evidence is only anecdotal at this stage, this small change seems to have positive effects on the entire cohort, fostering a more collaborative and open teaching environment, and reinforcing the class as a space of collective learning and teaching.

    Recognising that neurodivergent students, disabled students, and those with mental health conditions are experts because of their experience is critical to work against assumptions which, however unintentionally, disempower these groups. In line with trends around developing ethical practice as part of community-based participatory research, recent movements within disability studies seek to redress the imbalance within scholarship which has cast disabled people as subjects of research, rather than active participants with agency to engage in discussion and innovation: no research about us without us.

    Through proactively working with students, MINOTAUR recognises that higher education cannot meet the needs of this cohort without working with them collaboratively to produce interventions that are grounded in their student experience.

    Source link