Variations in anxiety and emotional support among first-year college students across different learning modes (distance and face-to-face) during COVID-19

Flor Rocío Ramírez-Martínez; Maria Theresa Villanos; Sonam Sharma; Marie Leiner

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285650

. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0285650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650

Variations in anxiety and emotional support among first-year college students across different learning modes (distance and face-to-face) during COVID-19

Flor Rocío Ramírez-Martínez ¹, Maria Theresa Villanos ², Sonam Sharma ², Marie Leiner ^1,^*

Editor: Jin Su Jeong³

PMCID: PMC10919625 PMID: 38451887

Abstract

College students with more emotional support experience lower levels of anxiety and other psychosocial and behavioral problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emotional well-being of college students was additionally challenged by an abrupt shift to distance learning followed by a return to face-to-face classes. In this exploratory study, we compared the levels of perceived emotional support and anxiety among incoming first-year undergraduate students, prior to starting classes, which included different learning modes in five semesters of instruction from 2021–2023 (three distance semesters and two face-to-face semesters). Data from 8659 undergraduate students were extracted from a Mexican state university database, corresponding to students’ responses collected during new student orientation week. Participants were students in the arts and humanities (9.7%), social and legal sciences (38%), life and health sciences (28.9%), and engineering and architecture (23.4%). Anxiety levels were measured with the GAD-7 scale, and emotional support was measured using a subscale of the PERACT-R (To go through with resilience) inventory. Comparisons of emotional support and anxiety scores among semesters revealed highly significant differences with small effect sizes. Anxiety levels increased significantly with mean average of 6.65 SD(5.52) during the baseline measure to the highest in 2022–2 to 7.53 SD(5.3) and Emotional Support decreased systematically each semester from baseline mean = 8.03 SD(2.0) to the lowest 7.52 SD(1.8) in 2022–2. The results show that a return to face-to-face classes was associated with increased anxiety levels, whereas levels of emotional support systematically decreased across the five semesters. MANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in anxiety and emotional support scores between semesters, with peaks during the learning mode semester that students returned to face-to-face classes after distance learning even after adjusting for gender. Given that the effect of emotional support on anxiety may be related to success in future educational and professional activities, it is important to develop interventions to restore and increase college students’ emotional support levels and develop anxiety management strategies.

Introduction

Studies have shown that college is a challenging time for students, with lasting effects on their quality of life and mental health, influenced by factors such as academic discipline, personal and/or contextual factors [1, 2]. Students in health sciences disciplines have traditionally been considered to face different challenges than their counterparts in non-health disciplines regardless of geographical location, as a result of the academic demands, time commitment and rigorous exams, as well as the pressure exerted by the clinical education environment [2–6]. Although academic disciplines may present different challenges, evidence suggests that students, regardless of field of study and/or location, can experience high stress, anxiety, depression, and low quality of life, potentially affecting their academic and social functioning [7, 8]. Starting college can involve significant social changes in the lives of students; for example, they stop being teenagers and become adults, acquiring a certain independence, which is often accompanied by new demands and responsibilities [9–11].

Pressures to excel academically, make new friends, and establish a sense of identity can contribute to college students’ anxiety [12, 13]. In addition, the stress of living away from home and dealing with finances can further exacerbate anxiety [14]. Research has shown that anxiety is prevalent amongst college students but it can be further heightened by contextual factors in times of uncertainty, such as during the COVID-19 Pandemic [15]. COVID-19 significantly disrupted teaching and learning practices, as college students were forced to quickly adapt to a socially isolated distance learning environment [16, 17]. This shift to online learning modes led to a decline in academic performance as students lost the structure and support of a traditional classroom environment [18]. In addition, social distancing limited opportunities for in-person interaction, making it difficult for students to establish new friendships and experience a sense of community [19–21]. Due to school closures, students also lost crucial access to support systems, such as socializing with peers, which further intensified their mental health problems [22–24].

The adoption of distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in poor academic performance and further increased anxiety among college students [25]. Distance learning proved difficult for students vulnerable to other online distractions, especially those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [23]. Distance learning widened the digital divide, creating new challenges for students who lacked access to reliable technology and the Internet, thus limiting the quality of the learning experience. Moreover, one study reports that in disadvantaged communities, only 42% of teachers had the necessary training or knowledge to use software programs to provide adequate instruction to students [18]. This lack of structure and accountability in e-learning resulted in decreased motivation, commitment, and attendance [26]. Consequently, math and reading test scores for students at all grade levels declined, with a widening of disparities based on students’ racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds [24, 27, 28].

When the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic subsided and universities reopened for face-to-face classes, many college students faced significant challenges and increased anxiety [29–31]. The sudden transition from distance learning to face-to-face classes, combined with fear of contracting the virus, contributed to increased stress levels [32]. In addition, students felt unprepared for the academic rigors of face-to-face classes after a long period of distance learning mode. Adapting to new health and safety protocols, such as the use of face masks and social distancing, also contributed to the challenges [33]. In addition, students had to cope with the risk of exposure to the virus, especially if they lived on campus or attended face-to-face classes [34, 35]. These challenges created a sense of uncertainty and discomfort, making it difficult for university students to focus on their studies and maintain their mental health.

Review of related research

Emotional support has been considered crucial for helping college students during challenging times and reducing their anxiety [36–40]. Theory and research findings indicate the importance of satisfying relationships with peers and family in predicting the academic performance and persistence of college students [41]. The theories we are referencing here frame sense of support as the most active ingredient of social support. This argument is based on individuals’ belief that they have people who value and care about them and are willing to try to help them. Although support from others differs in its ability to communicate or provide love, knowing that one is loved and that others will go out of their way to help us and when problems arise may be the essence of social support [42]. Social and emotional support appears to mediate somatic anxiety symptoms experienced by first-generation students [43]. Previous studies show that students who participate in peer support programs emphasizing emotional and social support have lower levels of anxiety, depression, and stress compared with students who do not participate [44]. Students who report lacking psychological support from their families also show a higher likelihood of anxiety compared with other students [45].

Based on the evidence presented, it is likely that many students from all fields of study, living in different economic contexts, experienced higher levels of anxiety in the years surrounding the pandemic, and that variations occur due to the different modes of learning—distance and face-to-face. It is also possible that freshmen who either completed or did not complete the previous level and began college in a distance or face-to-face learning mode were also affected. In addition, it is possible that the emotional support students felt, and levels of anxiety varied at different times during the pandemic and, more importantly, that systematic learning about students’ struggles may enable the development of projects to ensure that students are offered appropriate services and interventions. This study analyzed data collected anonymously over several semesters from students starting college during new student orientation week prior to start classes in an upper-middle-income country during COVID. Specifically, we sought to observe the variations in anxiety and emotional support across different learning modes including distance and face-to-face, during COVID-19 among first-year college students. To our knowledge, there is insufficient information on the relationship between perceived emotional support and anxiety levels among these students during COVID collected over multiple semesters of admission when classes were offered in a distance or face-to-face learning mode. We hypothesized that anxiety would be negatively associated with emotional support among incoming college students, regardless of whether they started attending distance or face-to-face classes. In addition, anxiety levels would be higher for incoming students upon transitioning back to face-to-face classes, and emotional support levels would be perceived to be similar for students who started college in either of the semesters considered.

Hypothesis:

H1: There would be a variation in anxiety levels for incoming starting college students when transitioning from distance to face-to-face instruction modes.
H2: There would be similar levels of perceived emotional support for incoming starting college students across semesters offered in a distance and face-to-face mode format.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso, Texas, USA, approval was requested for the protocol including data review and analysis. It was concluded that this study did not meet the definition of a human research study as all data were anonymized and no individual could be identified, IRB approval was not necessary. No further review was required.

Study design

This study analyzed data collected from a systematic, anonymous, voluntary survey of incoming college students who began their studies at the Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in either the spring or fall semester in the largest campus (North). It included independent data collected over five semesters, spring and fall 2021, 2022, and spring 2023 from the north campus. Data were collected prior to the start of classes during new student orientation week, which includes several information sessions for students and/or parents to familiarize them with offered services, programs, etc. During the pandemic, these sessions were conducted in distance learning (3 sessions) or face-to-face learning modes (2 sessions) concurrently with their class delivery formats.

Located on the northern border with the United States in the state of Chihuahua, the Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez is a public teaching and research institution. It is the largest university in a city of about 1.5 million inhabitants. The university is spread over four campuses, two outside the city, and two in the city. The north campus is composed of 57 programs distributed in the schools of architecture, design, and art; biomedical sciences; social and administrative sciences; and engineering and technology. The faculty of all campuses is about 816 full-time faculty and 36,500 students with a percentage of women students at 56%.

Regarding the socioeconomic level of the students attending the university, it is estimated that most of the students have limited economic resources. In fact, according to a report by CONEVAL, the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy [46], the city’s population remained below the extreme poverty line during all the semesters in which the study was conducted.

University psychological support program and contextual factors

This institutional program proposed and supported this data collection. It is a program that provides psychological support to students who are experiencing emotional, family, or social difficulties. In addition, students can use a mobile application to request support and counseling securely and confidentially, as well as participate in distance or in-person conferences in areas of personal and academic improvement offered each term. This program, along with other services and information about the university in general, is announced to incoming students during new student orientation week prior to the start of classes. To better understand the needs of students, anonymous surveys were administered during the pandemic, requesting information about anxiety, resilience levels, and media use, with assurances that the information provided was confidential. The students were also informed that the purpose of collecting this confidential, voluntary, non-identifying information was to provide them with support programs, which were almost simultaneously launched including a student wellness program that has been in place for several semesters (results of the program not included).

Lockdown in Ciudad Juarez started around October 2020 due to red traffic light, a monitoring system for epidemiological risk of COVID-19. A curfew was set to take effect as part of restrictions imposed in Chihuahua state including Ciudad Juarez because the region was experiencing a major surge of Covid-19 infections [47]. The overnight curfew in Juárez was running from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. every day, stopping people from holding parties, limiting capacity in restaurants, stores, churches, movie theaters, libraries, children parks, museums and cultural centers. Alcohol sales were prohibited from Thursday to Sunday in the hopes of preventing gatherings. Face masks and social distancing was required although fines were not implemented. Border crossing between USA-Mexico was restricted for 19 months starting March 2020 [48]. Remote learning was extensive at the high school and college level and occurred simultaneously from March 2020 to August 2022.

Participants

The original data (N = 8,659) were obtained from a university database in Mexico containing de-identified information from surveys administered to starting college university students for five semesters during the COVID-19 pandemic from Spring 2021 to Spring 2023. Data from five semesters were analyzed, which included three semesters of distant learning classes (Spring 2021, N = 1782; Fall 2021, N = 2019; Spring 2022, N = 1667) and two semesters of face-to-face classes (Fall 2022, N = 2287; Spring 2023, N = 904). Deidentified information from the survey responses were obtained from university students during the university’s new student orientation week prior to classes and stored in a database. The authors of the article or university authorities did not have access to identifiers that could link the data provided back to the students who completed the information.

Measures

Demographic information extracted from the database included gender, age, study area, occupation, living situation, semester, and class format (distant or face-to-face). The data stored in the database was accessed once the information for the spring 2023 semester was collected.

Anxiety. The General Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) [49] is a seven-item self-administered instrument that uses some Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria for general anxiety disorder to identify the probable occurrence and measure the severity of anxiety symptoms. GAD-7 scores of 5–9, 10–14, and 15–21 are considered to indicate mild, moderate, and severe levels of anxiety. The validity of the GAD-7 instrument is demonstrated by robust correlations with other domains of functional impairment. Cronbach’s alpha indicates excellent internal consistency of the instrument (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) [49].

Emotional support. Emotional support was measured by the emotional support subscale from the PERACT-R (To go through with resilience) resilience inventory. The full scale measures the extent to which individuals have developed key abilities to respond to and cope with difficult situations [50]. The emotional support subscale includes three items: 1) “When you are faced with a problem or a difficult situation, do you have one or more people to help you find solutions?”, 2) “When faced with a problem or difficult situation, do you look to spirituality (meditation, religion, yoga, etc.) for the strength you need to solve/cope with those problems?”, and 3) “When you are faced with a problem or a difficult situation, do you have one or more people to advise you on how to find a solution to your problems?”. The items are measured on a 4-point Likert scale as 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = always. The emotional support score was calculated from the sum of the three item scores, with higher scores indicating more emotional support. Based on a pilot test, the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that this subscale had good model fit (root mean square root of the error of approximation (RMSEA) = .053, 90% confidence interval 0.052–0.055; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91; Tucker Lewis fit index (TLI) = 0.89; normed fit index = 0.91; goodness of fit = 0.96; adjusted goodness of fit = 0.95; standardized root mean residual = 0.04). Cronbach’s alpha indicated excellent internal consistency of the subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90).

Procedure

Every semester recruitment (Spring 2021; Fall 2021; Spring 2022; Fall 2022; Spring 2023) occurred during new student orientation week at a university in Mexico located near the Mexico-US border. New students responded voluntarily and anonymously to several surveys lasting approximately 15 minutes as part of program activities. Responses to the GAD-7, PERACT-R emotional support subscale, and some additional demographic data were extracted for the present study. The surveys were administered to incoming freshman students over five consecutive semesters from 2021 to 2023, which included both learning modes distance and face-to-face semesters. Voluntary responses included in the database varied between 32 to 48% of the total of students over the five semesters.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 24 program. Continuous data were reported using mean and standard deviation (SD), and categorical data were reported using frequency and proportion. The data were analyzed for the presence of multivariate atypical values as well as normal distribution. Examination of histograms, skewness, and kurtosis of variables revealed deviations from normal distributions. Anxiety and emotional support scores were log-transformed and compared among semesters using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) adjusted for gender. As some non-normality existed after transformation, we used a threshold of p = 0.008 to indicate statistical significance. In addition, as the F tests for MANOVA were highly significant (p < 0.001), discriminant analysis was performed to further characterize the dimensions on which the semesters differed. The structural validity of the emotional support subscale was determined by performing CFA using AMOS Graphic (Version 24.0). The CFA model was estimated using maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and a mean-adjusted chi-square test statistic that is robust to non-normality. CFA models were evaluated for different fit indices: root mean square root of the residual (RMR), RMSEA, TLI, and CFI. Generally, fit is considered acceptable when RMR and RMSEA values are < 0.08 [51] and TLI and CFI values are > 0.90 [52]. Spearman’s correlation coefficient, r, was used to assess the association between social support, anxiety, and distance or face-to-face classes over five semesters.

Results

The mean age of participants below 25 years old was 92.7% with a range of 18–39 years old. The sample included 5198 (60.0%) females and 3461 (40.0%) males. Table 1 shows demographic characteristics of participants across semesters. Distributions with respect to age, gender, civil status, place of residency, living status and area of study were comparable across semesters, although some differences were found that are not unusual due to the fact that responses are voluntary. An average of 75 to 78% of the students are originally from Ciudad Juarez, most of them indicated to be single and the study area with the highest percentage of students was Social and Legal Sciences across semesters followed by Life and Health Sciences.

Table 1. Participant socio-demographic characteristics for each semester.

	2021		2022		2023
Variables	Spring	Fall	Spring	Fall	Spring
Variables	N = 1782	N = 2019	N = 1667	N = 2287	N = 904	p-value
Gender, n (%)
Male	687(38.6)	764(37.8)	686(41.2)	954(41.7)	370(41.9)	0.049
Female	1095(61.4)	1255(62.2)	981(58.8)	1333(58.3)	534(59.1)
Age (%)
< 25 years	90.3	95.1	86.7	92.9	93.9	< .001
Civil status (%)
Single	91.5	96.0	92.1	96.3	93.6	< .001
Residency (%)
Cd. Juarez	77.3	76.4	78.2	74.8	78.2	.086
Living (%)
Alone	2.0	0.9	1.4	1.0	1.3	.007
One parent	16.1	13.9	13.9	12.4	13.7
Family/friends	81.9	85.2	84.6	86.6	85.0
Study Area (%)
A & H^AH	8.4	8.6	7.7	10.8	15.8	< .001
S & L^SL	36.5	40.9	35.4	40.0	34.3
L & H^LH	35.0	25.3	33.8	23.1	30.2
E & A^EA	20.1	25.2	23.0	26.1	19.7	< .001

Open in a new tab

AH = Arts and Humanities, SL = Social and Legal Sciences LH = Life and Health Sciences EA = Engineering and Arquitecture

Table 2 includes the non-transformed anxiety and emotional support scores of participants across semesters to simplify, in addition to anxiety levels categorized as mild, moderate, and severe. Anxiety and emotional support scores differ significantly across semesters. Post hoc comparisons across semesters show that the Fall 2022 semester has the higher scores in terms of anxiety scores as well as the proportion of moderate and severe anxiety levels. A decrease in emotional support scores each semester is observed across semesters, with significant differences between Spring 2021 and all considered semesters.

Table 2. Participants non-transformed anxiety and emotional support scores across semesters.

	2021		2022		2023
Variables	Spring	Fall	Spring	Fall	Spring
Variables	N = 1782	N = 2019	N = 1667	N = 2287	N = 904	p-value
Anxiety Mean (SD)	6.65(5.2)	6.90(5.1)	6.6(5.1)	7.53(5.3)	6.2(5.0)	<0.001^*
Emotional Support Mean (SD)	8.03(2.0)	7.77(1.9)	7.66(1.9)	7.52(1.83)	7.62(2.0)	<0.001^*
Anxiety levels (%)
Mild	30.5	32.1	32.0	33.5	31.0	<0.001^**
Moderate	13.2	14.8	13.6	16.8	11.6
Severe	8.1	7.7	7.3	9.8	7.1

Open in a new tab

*Significant from ANOVA Test.

** Significant from Chi square analysis

To assess whether female or male students had different anxiety and emotional support scores over different semesters of distance and face-to-face learning modes during the pandemic and whether there was an interaction between gender and semesters, two-way MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) was run with semester and gender as independent variables and anxiety and emotional support non-transformed scores as dependent variables. The interaction effect between gender and semester on the combined dependent variables was not statistically significant (F(8, 17296) = 1.92, p = 0.052, Wilks’ Λ = 0.998, partial η² = 0.001). The main effect of gender on the combined dependent variables was significant (F(2, 8648) = 199.26, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Λ = 0.956, partial η² = 0.044), indicating that anxiety and emotional non-transformed support scores differed between males and females. The main effect of semester on the combined dependent variables was also significant (F(8, 17296) = 14.61, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Λ = 0.987, partial η2 = 0.007), indicating that the linear composite differed across semesters. Next, follow-up univariate two-way ANOVAs were run including the main effects of semester and gender.

Hypothesis:

H1: There would be a variation in anxiety levels for incoming starting college students when transitioning from distance to face-to-face instruction modes.
H2: There would be similar levels of perceived emotional support for incoming starting college students across semesters offered in a distance and face-to-face mode format.

There were significant main effects of semester on anxiety scores (F(4, 8649) = 13.65, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.006) (Fig 1) and emotional support scores (F(4, 8649) = 17.30, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.008) (Fig 2). Additionally, there were significant main effects of gender on anxiety scores (F(1, 8649) = 341.95, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.038) and emotional support scores (F(1, 8649) = 23.03, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.003).

MANOVA analysis showed that anxiety and emotional support scores were significantly different among semesters, even after adjusting for gender. One-way ANOVAs comparing individual raw scores showed significant differences in anxiety scores between semesters with distance vs. face-to-face classes. In particular, anxiety scores in the Fall 2022 semester, when students returned to face-to-face classes, were significantly higher than anxiety scores in all other semesters (Fig 1). Anxiety scores were also significantly higher in the distance Fall 2021 semester than in the Spring 2023 face-to-face semester. Emotional support scores decreased systematically across semesters, with significant differences between the initial measures across all the semesters (Fig 2).

Anxiety and emotional relationships

Pearson’s correlation was used to determine the relationships between anxiety and emotional support. Significant negative relationships were found per semester 2021 Spring (r = -0.156, p < 0.001) Fall (r = -0.100, p < 0.001) 2022 Spring (r = -0.144, p < 0.001) Fall (r = -0.114, p < 0.001) and 2023 Spring (r = -0.139 p < 0.001).

MANOVA was followed up with discriminant analysis, which revealed two discriminant functions. Both discriminant functions were significant (Wilks’s Λ = 0.986, (8) = 125.06, p < 0.001 for discriminant function 1; Wilks’s Λ = 0.996, (3) = 33.64, p < 0.001 for discriminant function 2). The first discriminant function explained 73.2% of the variance, and the second discriminant function explained 26.8% of the variance. Discriminant function 1 had the largest absolute correlation with emotional support, followed by anxiety. Discriminant function 2 had the largest absolute correlation with anxiety, followed by emotional support. Pairwise comparison of function 1 scores showed differences between the following semesters: Spring 2021 (M = 0.155) vs. Fall 2021 (M = 0.005), Spring 2021 (M = 0.155) vs. Spring 2022 (M = 0.013), Spring 2021 (M = 0.155) vs. Fall 2022 (M = -0.145), and Spring 2021 (M = 0.155) vs. Spring 2023 (M = 0.027). In addition, pairwise comparisons of function 2 scores showed differences between the following semesters: Spring 2021 (M = 0.055) vs. Fall 2021 (M = 0.030), Spring 2021 (M = 0.055) vs. Spring 2022 (M = -0.066), Spring 2021 (M = 0.055) vs. Fall 2022 (M = 0.32), and Spring 2021 (M = 0.055) vs. Spring 2023 (M = -0.137).

Discussion

This study analyzed data from a large university database containing survey responses from new college students regarding their anxiety and emotional support prior to attending classes distance or upon return to face-to-face classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Students’ anxiety levels peaked in the first semester that classes returned to a face-to-face format. During the second semester of face-to-face classes, anxiety levels decreased. As in previous studies [53], anxiety levels of females were higher than those of males, with a consistent trend across all semesters.

Although all students at any educational level experience anxiety, it is important to note that the pandemic posed an additional challenge for students who transitioned between educational levels. In the study, some students completed distance learning in high school and entered college in the same format. Others went on to complete a distance-learning high school and begin college in a face-to-face program. Starting a different educational level is stressful because it requires a change in routine, teachers, friends, and financial conditions. Internal reports from the Psychological Support Program in the University indicated that levels of stress and anxiety were high among students in general. It seems that the Mexican students in this study appeared to have elevated levels of anxiety (score of > 10 on the GAD-7) compared with university students in China or Hong Kong in the same year (21.3% vs. 9.7%, respectively) [54]. These high anxiety levels information suggest the need for the university to incorporate strategies including one that seemed to attain positive results that include a mandatory attendance to a Wellness Workshop offered to starting students in the first weeks of class to help reduce their anxiety and stress. The results of this study are not presented in this paper.

Regarding emotional support, there was a systematic decrease in scores across semesters, although the causes of this decline are unknown. Levels of emotional support in the semester that students returned to face-to-face classes showed a similar pattern as anxiety scores, although emotional support scores did not recover in later semesters to the same degree as anxiety scores. Consistent with previous studies [55], male students reported a lower emotional support scores than female students. The emotional support of students is crucial for favorable outcomes, such as academic and job performance, psychological health, and reduced suicide risk [56]. Evidence suggests that family support is very important for Mexican families, with studies indicating that this also holds true for families in the US [57].

The available evidence indicates that university students at the beginning of their careers or in later years worldwide, regardless of their field of study, are vulnerable to mental health problems and that contextual factors such as the pandemic have a significant influence. For this reason, universities implement strategies that provide students with the resources necessary to overcome these problems and achieve academic and personal success, despite the challenges involved [58]. Some universities provide counseling services to help students in need, which unfortunately are not being utilized as one would expect. A study conducted during COVID reported that the majority of students with moderate or severe mental health symptoms never utilized internal or external mental health services [59]. Another valuable strategy for universities includes the systematic collection of anonymous information from students regarding their quality of life, and mental health which can guide further strategies to address their problems. Anonymous information is more feasible to be collected while students know their names are not disclosed and is an opportunity also to offer during this data collection the counseling services they can access [60]. Resulting information allows for general and specific programs that can be offered to the students and should be always available for the students.

Some universities are capitalizing on the fact that students accept and adhere to treatments offered through apps for various disorders such as stress, anxiety, depression, and risky behaviors. The cost of these interventions is also reduced in light of the challenges associated with insufficient human resources [61]. Student retention is a major concern for institutions, exacerbated when there are disparities among students, contextual factors such as a pandemic, or when the field of study is more rigorous. Psychosocial factors and mental health have been shown to be critical to the academic success of college students. Studies have shown that academic anxiety has a direct impact on academic performance, which ultimately leads to attrition. The provision of mental health counseling and the willingness of students to seek support from the centers that provide these services have shown success in terms of student retention or GPA [62]. However, the complexity and resources required often exceed a university’s budget and resources [63]. Academic demands will continue to place pressures on students that, by their nature, cannot be eliminated, but it is possible to reduce attrition rates by providing students with the resources, competencies, and skills to meet these challenges. These resources can become a preventative process that allows students to manage their academic challenges as part of their formal for-credit educational program. Offering courses that students can take on a voluntary basis can be a helpful strategy, but most likely students will prefer to take courses that are required and for credit and will not participate in voluntary programs regardless of their needs. Emotional support is relevant to school performance and college students’ well-being. Although the causes of the systematic decline in emotional support across semesters are unknown and could be related to the death of a family member, difficulty socializing with friends or family during the pandemic, or subjective perception, strategies for emotionally supporting students are warranted. The results of this study suggest that it is important for universities to intensify their measurement of indicators of anxiety and emotional support and to develop specific strategies to improve the mental health and wellness of students.

Limitations of this study include that all data were cross-sectional and there was no follow-up. The study involves only one University, and the data were not normally distributed, even after transformation. All students voluntarily responded to the surveys, which could suggest that those who responded felt more anxious than those who did not respond, although the scales were embedded with other survey items not specifically described as being related to anxiety or emotional support. Also, the database did not include other information that could allow discrimination among groups more broadly, such as being first-generation students or personal losses during covid, which has been shown to increase anxiety levels [43, 64]. The groups of participants included for each semester are different and the collection during the last semester dropped to the lowest level since the collection started even though the procedures to invite students and collection was the same. There is a possibility that other factors that were not considered in this study could contribute to changes in the anxiety and emotional support levels in an individual level.

Data Availability

The data will be available in a public repository database. The DOI/accession codes will be made available at acceptance. Data will be available from the Zenodo database [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8250874.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.January J, Madhombiro M, Chipamaunga S, Ray S, Chingono A, Abas M. Prevalence of depression and anxiety among undergraduate university students in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0723-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Brenneisen Mayer F, Souza Santos I, Silveira PSP, Itaqui Lopes MH, de Souza ARND, Campos EP, et al. Factors associated to depression and anxiety in medical students: a multicenter study. BMC Medical Education. 2016;16(1):282. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0791-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Moir F, Yielder J, Sanson J, Chen Y. Depression in medical students: current insights. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2018;9:323–33. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S137384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Giusti L, Mammarella S, Salza A, Ussorio D, Bianco D, Casacchia M, et al. Heart and Head: Profiles and Predictors of Self-Assessed Cognitive and Affective Empathy in a Sample of Medical and Health Professional Students. Front Psychol. 2021;12:632996. Epub 20210616. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.632996 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, Segal JB, Peluso MJ, Guille C, et al. Prevalence of Depression, Depressive Symptoms, and Suicidal Ideation Among Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Jama. 2016;316(21):2214–36. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17324 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Volpe U, Ventriglio A, Bellomo A, Kadhum M, Lewis T, Molodynski A, et al. Mental health and wellbeing among Italian medical students: a descriptive study. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019;31(7–8):569–73. Epub 20190830. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2019.1654718 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Wielewska MK, Godzwon JM, Gargul K, Nawrocka E, Konopka K, Sobczak K, et al. Comparing Students of Medical and Social Sciences in Terms of Self-Assessment of Perceived Stress, Quality of Life, and Personal Characteristics. Front Psychol. 2022;13:815369. Epub 20220413. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815369 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Akhtar P, Ma L, Waqas A, Naveed S, Li Y, Rahman A, et al. Prevalence of depression among university students in low and middle income countries (LMICs): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:911–9. Epub 20200524. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.183 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Stallman HM. Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian psychologist. 2010;45(4):249–57. doi: 10.1080/00050067.2010.482109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Hunt J, Eisenberg D. Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students. Journal of adolescent health. 2010;46(1):3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Eisenberg D, Gollust SE, Golberstein E, Hefner JL. Prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among university students. American journal of orthopsychiatry. 2007;77(4):534–42. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.534 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Andrews B, Wilding JM. The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. Br J Psychol. 2004;95(Pt 4):509–21. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369802 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Kenney SR, Ott M, Meisel MK, Barnett NP. Alcohol perceptions and behavior in a residential peer social network. Addict Behav. 2017;64:143–7. Epub 20160901. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.047 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Lim H, Heckman S, Montalto CP, Letkiewicz J. Financial stress, self-efficacy, and financial help-seeking behavior of college students. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning. 2014;25(2):148–60. doi: 10.35794/jmbi.v9i1.40983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Newton TL, Ohrt JH. Infusing mindfulness-based interventions in support groups for grieving college students. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work. 2018;43(2):166–83. doi: 10.1080/01933922.2018.1431347 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Wang X, Hegde S, Son C, Keller B, Smith A, Sasangohar F. Investigating Mental Health of US College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e22817. Epub 20200917. doi: 10.2196/22817 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Alshammari T, Alseraye S, Alqasim R, Rogowska A, Alrasheed N, Alshammari M. Examining anxiety and stress regarding virtual learning in colleges of health sciences: A cross-sectional study in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm J. 2022;30(3):256–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2022.01.010 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.García E, Weiss E. COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute. 2020. [Google Scholar]
19.Mir IA, Ng SK, Mohd Jamali MNZ, Jabbar MA, Humayra S. Determinants and predictors of mental health during and after COVID-19 lockdown among university students in Malaysia. PloS one. 2023;18(1):e0280562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Yu Z. Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability. 2022;14(8):4388. doi: 10.3390/su14084388 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Meeter M, Bele T, den Hartogh C, Bakker T, de Vries RE, Plak S. College students’ motivation and study results after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. 2020. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/kn6v9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Khandelwal M. Attitudes Towards Mental Health Help-Seeking and Stigma Among College Students: Xavier University; 2023. [Google Scholar]
23.Largent C, Giuffrida C. COVID-19’s Impact On The Use Of Media, Educational Performance, And Learning In Children And Adolescents With ADHD Who Engaged In Virtual Learning. 2022. [Google Scholar]
24.Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Lewis K. Test score patterns across three COVID-19-impacted school years. Educational Researcher. 2022;51(7):500–6. doi: 10.3102/0013189X221109178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Mothibi G. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between E-Learning and Students’ Academic Achievement in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Practice. 2015;6(9):6–9. [Google Scholar]
26.Göksu İ, Ergün N, Özkan Z, Sakız H. Distance education amid a pandemic: Which psycho-demographic variables affect students in higher education? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2021;37(6):1539–52. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Goudeau S, Sanrey C, Stanczak A, Manstead A, Darnon C. Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(10):1273–81. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Lup O, Mitrea EC. Online Learning During the Pandemic: Assessing Disparities in Student Engagement in higher Education. Journal of Pedagogy—Revista de Pedagogie. 2021;LXIX:31–50. doi: 10.26755/RevPed/2021.1/31 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Felson J, Adamczyk A. Online or in Person? Examining College Decisions to Reopen during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Fall 2020. Socius. 2021;7:2378023120988203. Epub 20210121. doi: 10.1177/2378023120988203 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Tran A, Kerkstra RL, Gardocki SL, Papuga SC. Lessons Learned: Teaching In-Person During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Education. 2021;6. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.690646 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Liverpool S, Moinuddin M, Aithal S, Owen M, Bracegirdle K, Caravotta M, et al. Mental health and wellbeing of further and higher education students returning to face-to-face learning after Covid-19 restrictions. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280689. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Fox MD, Bailey DC, Seamon MD, Miranda ML. Response to a COVID-19 outbreak on a university campus—Indiana, August 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2021;70(4):118. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7004a3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Rashid S, Shaikh S, Mardini L, Saad FS. Back to School: COVID-19 Post-Lockdown Classroom Anxiety. Education Sciences. 2022;12(11):800. doi: 10.3390/educsci12110800 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Travis SA, Best AA, Bochniak KS, Dunteman ND, Fellinger J, Folkert PD, et al. Providing a Safe, In-Person, Residential College Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front Public Health. 2021;9:672344. Epub 20210623. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.672344 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Zafarnejad R, Griffin PM. Assessing school-based policy actions for COVID-19: An agent-based analysis of incremental infection risk. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2021;134:104518. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Chang J, Yuan Y, Wang D. Mental health status and its influencing factors among college students during the epidemic of COVID-19. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2020:171–6. doi: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2020.02.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Islam MA, Barna SD, Raihan H, Khan MNA, Hossain MT. Depression and anxiety among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: A web-based cross-sectional survey. PloS one. 2020;15(8):e0238162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Pramukti I, Strong C, Sitthimongkol Y, Setiawan A, Pandin MGR, Yen C-F, et al. Anxiety and suicidal thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-country comparative study among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai university students. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020;22(12):e24487. doi: 10.2196/24487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Pfefferbaum B, North CS. Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):510–2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Diaz-Jimenez RMP, Caravaca-Sanchez FP, Martin-Cano MCP, De la Fuente-Robles YMP. Anxiety levels among social work students during the COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Soc Work Health Care. 2020;59(9–10):681–93. Epub 20201209. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2020.1859044 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Altermatt ER. Academic Support From Peers as a Predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy Among College Students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 2016;21(1):21–37. doi: 10.1177/1521025116686588 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR. Social Support: The Search for Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1990;9(1):133–47. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Noel JK, Lakhan HA, Sammartino CJ, Rosenthal SR. Depressive and anxiety symptoms in first generation college students. J Am Coll Health. 2021:1–10. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1950727 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Suresh R, Alam A, Karkossa Z. Using Peer Support to Strengthen Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:714181. Epub 20210712. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.714181 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Ghazawy ER, Ewis AA, Mahfouz EM, Khalil DM, Arafa A, Mohammed Z, et al. Psychological impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the university students in Egypt. Health Promot Int. 2021;36(4):1116–25. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaa147 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.CONEVAL. Indicadores de pobreza laboral Mexico City: Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social; 2023 [cited 2023 7/19/2023]. https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/Documents/ITLP_IS/2023/1T2023/Indicadores_pobreza_laboral_nacional_y_estatal_Mayo_2023.pdf#search=Ciudad%20Juarez%202020.
47.María Fernanda G-L, Sandra Alicia R-L, Luis Eduardo J-N, Alva Rocío C-G, Carlos A-Q, Geovanni Alexis G-O, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with anxiety and depression symptoms in adults from Chihuahua City, Mexico during COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures: Prevalencia y factores asociados a síntomas de ansiedad y depresión en adultos de la ciudad de Chihuahua, México durante la pandemia COVID-19 y las medidas de aislamiento. TECNOCIENCIA Chihuahua. 2022;16(1). doi: 10.54167/tecnociencia.v16i1.889 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48.Gurbuz O, Aldrete RM, Salgado DC, Gürbüz T. Transportation as a Disease Vector in COVID-19: Border Mobility and Disease Spread. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2023. doi: 10.1177/03611981231156588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Gómez García C. Intervención BIEN++ para optimizar el bienestar subjetivo, la resiliencia y disminuir la fatiga laboral prolongada del personal de salud en Cd. Juárez. Leiner de la Cabada M, editor: Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez; 2022. [Google Scholar]
51.Coughlan J, Hooper D, Mullen M. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Dublin Institute of Technology, 2008. [Google Scholar]
52.Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/bf02291170 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
53.Shin M, Hickey K. Needs a little TLC: examining college students’ emergency remote teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2020;45(7):973–86. doi: 10.1080/0309877x.2020.1847261 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
54.Feng S, Zhang Q, Ho SMY. Fear and anxiety about COVID-19 among local and overseas Chinese university students. Health Soc Care Community. 2021;29(6):e249–e58. Epub 20210406. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13347 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Ma Y, Chen SC, Zeng H. Male student nurses need more support: Understanding the determinants and consequences of career adaptability in nursing college students. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;91:104435. Epub 20200511. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104435 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Bartoszuk K, Deal JE, Yerhot M. Parents’ and College Students’ Perceptions of Support and Family Environment. Emerging Adulthood. 2019;9(1):76–87. doi: 10.1177/2167696818823947 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
57.Rodriguez SL, Garbee K, Martínez-Podolsky E. Coping With College Obstacles: The Complicated Role of Familia for First-Generation Mexican American College Students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 2019;20(1):75–90. doi: 10.1177/1538192719835683 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
58.Giusti L, Salza A, Mammarella S, Bianco D, Ussorio D, Casacchia M, et al. #Everything Will Be Fine. Duration of Home Confinement and "All-or-Nothing" Cognitive Thinking Style as Predictors of Traumatic Distress in Young University Students on a Digital Platform During the COVID-19 Italian Lockdown. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:574812. Epub 20201215. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.574812 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Lee J, Jeong HJ, Kim S. Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Among Undergraduate Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic and their Use of Mental Health Services. Innovative Higher Education. 2021;46(5):519–38. doi: 10.1007/s10755-021-09552-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Fletcher I, Castle M, Scarpa A, Myers O, Lawrence E. An exploration of medical student attitudes towards disclosure of mental illness. Medical Education Online. 2020;25(1):1727713. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2020.1727713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Oliveira C, Pereira A, Vagos P, Nóbrega C, Gonçalves J, Afonso B. Effectiveness of mobile app-based psychological interventions for college students: a systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in psychology. 2021;12:647606. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Kivlighan DM III, Schreier BA, Gates C, Hong JE, Corkery JM, Anderson CL, et al. The role of mental health counseling in college students’ academic success: An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2021;68(5):562. doi: 10.1037/cou0000534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Naidoo P, Cartwright D. Where to from Here? Contemplating the Impact of COVID-19 on South African Students and Student Counseling Services in Higher Education. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. 2022;36(4):355–69. doi: 10.1080/87568225.2020.1842279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
64.Helmbrecht B, Ayars C. Predictors of Stress in First-Generation College Students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 2021;58(2):214–26. doi: 10.1080/19496591.2020.1853552 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650.r001

Decision Letter 0

Syed Far Abid Hossain

30 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-11873Anxiety and emotional support among first-year college students during the transition from distance to face-to-face learning during COVID-19PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please respond to all the reviewers' comments carefully and highlight all the changes in the revised version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Syed Far Abid Hossain, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The current study aimed to investigate anxiety and emotional support in a large sample of first-year college students transitioning from distance education to face-to-face learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper provides a good scientific contribution to the panorama of studies investigating the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the general population's mental health, focusing on university students and their difficulties in building a productive and satisfying academic career, exacerbated during the pandemic. This study comprehensively analyzed the well-being trajectories in an extensive sample. The topic is interesting enough and qualitatively good to be published. However, some changes and explanations to improve the quality of the manuscript for his acceptance should be done.

Abstract section

In the 'abstract section' the Authors reported: "Data from 8659 freshman students were extracted from a university database". It would be useful to better contextualize the data collection, specifying the project's scope or initiative that promoted the data collection. Furthermore, the specification of the study courses to which the evaluated students belonged (humanities, mathematics, health, etc.) would be required.

Introduction section

In the 'introduction section' the bibliography is appropriate and updated. It is known that university students reported high emotional distress, anxiety and depression, low self-esteem, concentration, and learning difficulties compared to the general population, all factors that often lead to an emotional circle with a significant impact on academic performance and social relationships (listed below). In addition, it is well known that medical students suffer an increased risk of depression compared to their peers currently enrolled in non-medical university courses, and the presence of depressive symptoms seems to occur as early as the 1st year of the student's medical education (listed below), especially in women.

The conditions of medical university students have also been a research focus in Italian surveys that found that medical students highlighted issues associated with anxiety and depression, emotional distress, low perceived quality of life, problems related to alcohol consumption, and the propensity to use substances as cognitive enhancers (listed below). In addition, the Authors do not describe, as one would expect, the social changes related to the COVID-19 outbreak impact on the academic context. Distance education (DE) has replaced traditional face-to-face teaching, requiring great flexibility from university students. Additionally, home confinement compromised the possibility of fully experiencing university life, influencing academic study (i.e., delays in activities and digital platform use). The lockdown and restrictions related to the pandemic emergency probably increased students' difficulties, especially for first-year students who were starting a phase of important change for their life and future. For that reason, it would be helpful to mention some recent international studies on the impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on university students' mental health. Some authors focused on distance education's emotional and cognitive correlates during Covid-19 confinement, investigating samples of medical and health professions students on potential predictors of psychological distress and poor academic performance (listed below). Some authors focused on psychological, emotional, and cognitive correlates of social confinement in a sample of college students, integrating qualitative and quantitative analyses to identify potential predictors of traumatic distress during COVID-19. The Authors identified the thinking style "all or nothing" as the strongest predictor of traumatic distress in a sample of university students.

At the end of the introduction, the authors could report their study hypothesis.

Materials and methods section

It is not clear who promoted the survey. Is it a University psychological support Service? The Authors should make this clear. About the form information completed by each student, other characteristics such as, for example, informed consent, clinical variables (previous psychological problems and previous contacts with mental health services), and academic variables (off-course, off-site and current) were not taken into consideration of study. Authors should explain their choice or motivation.

The tables are not exhaustive for accurate data presentation. The tables are disorganized, and the figures are unclear. The authors could explain the reason for this synthesis or choice.

The authors do not report socio-demographic data of the students' sample evaluated (i.e., the year of course attended, first-year or not, foreign or off-site students, previous psychopathological conditions...). About table 1, it contains insufficient data.

Discussion section

The limitations of the study and the conclusions section are not reported.

The authors reported the need for university counselors as a useful strategy to help students cope with suffering and emotional difficulties to limit the potential structuring of psychopathological profiles over time. The authors could further discuss this aspect concerning the effectiveness that these university services have shown up to now.

In the bibliography section, not all references contain the 'doi'. Could the authors do a check?

Suggested References

1) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664032/

2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34220610/

3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29636088/

4) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27923088/

5) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31469033/

7) https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-021-00649-9

8) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33384623/

Reviewer #2: This paper consider how anxiety and emotional support varied for entering first-year students across semesters with face-to-face and virtual instruction using repeated cross sections from Mexico. This is an important question, but I believe the manuscript needs significant revision for impact. My key concerns are as follows:

(1) The hypotheses were not clearly laid out in the introduction. I wasn't sure what the authors were testing until the methods section and even then it was not entirely clear. What are the theories this is based on?

(2) While the introduction discusses the literature and motivates the general area of interest, I did not think it was clear about what gaps this current work would fill or how the current work would contribute to the body of knowledge

(3) More background on the context is needed to understand the findings. Do new students enter every semester and is spring semester entrance different from fall semester as it is in the US? If this survey is conducted during the first 2 weeks of an immersive program prior to experience the face-to-face or virtual instruction or hybrid that is being offered that semester, why would the type of instruction matter? What happens during the immersive 2 weeks?

(4) Sample representativeness: what was the response rate and how did it compare to the population of entrants

(5) How should we interpret findings across semesters. When anxiety and emotional support differs, is this due to different characteristics of entrants at different points in time or is it about the instruction? given that the survey is taken before the student has a chance to experience the university instruction, it seems strange to me to attribute trends as an effect of the type of instruction (there are so many reasons anxiety would be increasing and declining across cohorts during the pandemic). Maybe anxiety is just declining over time and less anxious students enter university at later periods of the pandemic? I think the connection to the type of instruction is circumstantial at best. Maybe I am missing something about the institutional environment and/or maybe you are trying to make more of a claim about the high school instruction?

(6) the description of the participants is unclear (longitudinal or repeated cross sections, entering first years, etc) until we get to the later procedures section. Can these combine to be clearer?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Roncone Rita

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0285650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

6 Sep 2023

We have submitted responses to each one of the comments and appreciate the effort and help provided to us to make this manuscript better

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS comments v2.docx

pone.0285650.s001.docx^{(24.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650.r003

Decision Letter 1

Jin Su Jeong

29 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-11873R1Anxiety and emotional support among first-year college students during the transition from distance to face-to-face learning during COVID-19PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leiner,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jin Su Jeong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Thanks for your response to my comments. In reading the new introduction, I see a better case made for the contribution and why the design might be useful for understanding the effect of virtual instruction. I also understand now the 2 hypotheses listed.

However my main remaining concerns are as follows:

(1) Who enters may vary across cohorts due to the anxiety already produced by the pandemic or other related factors

(2) It is unclear why differences in anxiety and emotional support across cohorts of entering first-year students should be attributed to switch from virtual learning to face to face and not other factors

The current framing seems misleading to me. We can see in the data that anxiety levels were higher among entering first year students when the university returned to face to face instruction than during semesters of virtual instruction. This could be due to the switch from virtual learning (though some students may have experience face to face or virtual learning previously). It may have nothing to do with the pandemic given that we do not have a pre-pandemic comparison, i.e., anxiety may always be higher in the face to face scenario. It could be something about other things that happened in Fall 2022, for instance, if the university changed who was admitted (it’s a much larger sample?) or other changes in policies that made students more anxious. Emotional support is just declining over time and seems like it could be something not related to the switch from face-to-face to virtual, which just seems part of trend.I'd really like those distinctions to be clear in the description of the study/intro and in the discussion/limitations. The comparisons are interesting, but the different patterns related to anxiety and depression around the return to in-person could be driven by different factors among these.

Additional context was useful, but I still did not see how we can think about comparison across the different cohorts from this. I still don’t understand whether the variation across Fall and Spring semesters is comparable in terms of selection into college—there do indeed appear to be differences according to Table 1. For instance, did people put off going to college because it was not in person? Background on Covid situation during this period could also be useful for framing how to think about the timing. Part of the effect over time could be length of exposure to remote instruction prior to college. Was the country in lockdown, social distancing, what was the extent of remote education in high school?

Reviewer #3: 1. The abstract can be further improved by specifying the key findings based on the scales used.

2. Kindly include review of related research i.e Related Works in a sub section, before the methodology section.

3. The presentation of the results need to simplify and easy to read/understand, as the level of statistical understanding might differs.

Reviewer #4: This study investigates anxiety and emotional support in a very large sample of first-year college students.

The research methods and the H1, H2 etc are well defined as far as the aim of the study. There is a sufficient literature reference list and provides a good scientific evidence for the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the general population's mental health, focusing on university students. The text is interesting, timely written and it is considerd good to be published.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0285650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

30 Dec 2023

However my main remaining concerns are as follows:

(1) Who enters may vary across cohorts due to the anxiety already produced by the pandemic or other related factors

Response:

We agree that the “why” is unknown and that individual differences can occur in the cohorts. We are not aware of any individual factors that specifically contribute to an increase in anxiety levels for each of the students in these comparisons. To respond to this possible misleading assumption, we have included the possibility that other factors could contribute to anxiety and emotional support levels in an individual level in the limitations section. The mediating role of social support in anxiety among college students has been explored in various studies which include that perceived social support is not only directly associated with anxiety, depression, and insomnia among college students during the pandemic but also indirectly connected with these mental health variables via self-control. The fact that social support seems to decrease during the pandemic in this large sample might be an interesting finding.

In regard to the possible differences in the cohorts’ participants during this collection the university was very concerned about the levels of anxiety and implemented a wellness program to attempt to remediate these levels. There were no observable differences in the policies that affected students as far as it was reported, the admissions policies document has not been changed in 6 years until 2023. We reported this in the limitations.

Response

As stated in the hypothesis, our objective was to present differences between the cohorts that occurred between semesters. In the case of anxiety, it increased during the semester they returned to face-to-face classes. To respond to this concern, we have included in the limitations the possibility that other factors could contribute to reducing or increasing the scores attenuated by the sample size.

Response:

We agree, although the framework presented does not consider the pandemic the cause of the anxiety levels or decrease in the emotional support, instead it is a global environmental factor that allowed us to observe possible differences during these semesters. Our point is that in similar conditions, considering the return to face-to-face classes, the student’s anxiety seemed to increase. We are presenting the differences observed in this population.

It could be something about other things that happened in Fall 2022, for instance, if the university changed who was admitted (it’s a much larger sample?) or other changes in policies that made students more anxious.

Response:

As far as we know, the university did not change anything globally and the number of students that applied and were accepted did not change in proportion in any of the semesters considered. The larger change we observed is registered statistically during the return to face-to-face classes. We have made changes in the document to report that no major changes in the admissions policies happened between these times. The fall of 2022 was a moment of return to partial normality and face-to-face classes that seem to have an influence on the anxiety levels perceived by the students, indeed we cannot report an effect based on this alone. However, the sample included is large and the overall anxiety levels seem to vary. The title of the study is now to show variations across semesters in pandemic times, without specifically pointing to returning to class as a cause, but instead to describe the large sample variations.

Emotional support is just declining over time and seems like it could be something not related to the switch from face-to-face to virtual, which just seems part of trend. I'd really like those distinctions to be clear in the description of the study/intro and in the discussion/limitations. The comparisons are interesting, but the different patterns related to anxiety and depression around the return to in-person could be driven by different factors among these.

Response:

Emotional support seems to follow a trend indeed and that is not related to the switch from face-to-face to virtual. We have added clarity in these distinctions in the sections included by the reviewer even changing the title to suggest that we are presenting variations, although we did not changed the hypotheses.

Response:

The cohorts are composed of students who responded to these scales during immersion week. The differences in table 1 are due to variations in regard to the age, civil status, area of study and living conditions that are not unusual as the response was not mandatory. For example, in the studies by Andersen et al. (2022) and Wong et al. (2022) they examined the impact of college campus closures during the pandemic on students' sense of connectedness, engagement, and mobility, providing insight into the impact of pandemic-related disruptions on students' academic experiences and preferences. These studies showed population’s samples and provided valuable insights into the multifaceted effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on college students' study preferences. They highlight the importance of understanding and addressing the multiple challenges college students are facing during this unprecedented time.

For instance, did people put off going to college because it was not in person? Background on Covid situation during this period could also be useful for framing how to think about the timing. Part of the effect over time could be length of exposure to remote instruction prior to college. Was the country in lockdown, social distancing, what was the extent of remote education in high school?

Response:

We have added background information to highlight the situation in Mexico including lockdown and social distancing. Remote learning was extensive at the high school and college level from March 2020 to August 2022.

Reviewer #3: 1. The abstract can be further improved by specifying the key findings based on the scales used.

Response:

We have added key findings to the abstract in regard to the scales used.

2. Kindly include review of related research i.e Related Works in a sub section, before the methodology section.

We have added the subsection requested.

3. The presentation of the results need to simplify and easy to read/understand, as the level of statistical understanding might differs.

We have made reviews to the results to simplify them and make them easy to understand

Reviewer #4: This study investigates anxiety and emotional support in a very large sample of first-year college students.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses 3.docx

pone.0285650.s002.docx^{(18.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650.r005

Decision Letter 2

Jin Su Jeong

29 Jan 2024

Variations in Anxiety and Emotional Support among first-Year college students across different learning modes (Distance and Face-to-Face) during COVID-19

PONE-D-23-11873R2

Dear Dr. Leiner,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jin Su Jeong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your responses to my comments and clarifications. I have no additional concerns to share.

Reviewer #3: The authors have made the acceptable improvements as being highlighted during the first review and acceptable to publish this paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285650.r006

Acceptance letter

Jin Su Jeong

26 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-11873R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leiner,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jin Su Jeong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS comments v2.docx

pone.0285650.s001.docx^{(24.8KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses 3.docx

pone.0285650.s002.docx^{(18.2KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0285650.ref001] 1.January J, Madhombiro M, Chipamaunga S, Ray S, Chingono A, Abas M. Prevalence of depression and anxiety among undergraduate university students in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0723-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref002] 2.Brenneisen Mayer F, Souza Santos I, Silveira PSP, Itaqui Lopes MH, de Souza ARND, Campos EP, et al. Factors associated to depression and anxiety in medical students: a multicenter study. BMC Medical Education. 2016;16(1):282. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0791-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref003] 3.Moir F, Yielder J, Sanson J, Chen Y. Depression in medical students: current insights. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2018;9:323–33. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S137384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref004] 4.Giusti L, Mammarella S, Salza A, Ussorio D, Bianco D, Casacchia M, et al. Heart and Head: Profiles and Predictors of Self-Assessed Cognitive and Affective Empathy in a Sample of Medical and Health Professional Students. Front Psychol. 2021;12:632996. Epub 20210616. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.632996 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref005] 5.Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, Segal JB, Peluso MJ, Guille C, et al. Prevalence of Depression, Depressive Symptoms, and Suicidal Ideation Among Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Jama. 2016;316(21):2214–36. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17324 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref006] 6.Volpe U, Ventriglio A, Bellomo A, Kadhum M, Lewis T, Molodynski A, et al. Mental health and wellbeing among Italian medical students: a descriptive study. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2019;31(7–8):569–73. Epub 20190830. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2019.1654718 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref007] 7.Wielewska MK, Godzwon JM, Gargul K, Nawrocka E, Konopka K, Sobczak K, et al. Comparing Students of Medical and Social Sciences in Terms of Self-Assessment of Perceived Stress, Quality of Life, and Personal Characteristics. Front Psychol. 2022;13:815369. Epub 20220413. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815369 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref008] 8.Akhtar P, Ma L, Waqas A, Naveed S, Li Y, Rahman A, et al. Prevalence of depression among university students in low and middle income countries (LMICs): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:911–9. Epub 20200524. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.183 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref009] 9.Stallman HM. Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian psychologist. 2010;45(4):249–57. doi: 10.1080/00050067.2010.482109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref010] 10.Hunt J, Eisenberg D. Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students. Journal of adolescent health. 2010;46(1):3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref011] 11.Eisenberg D, Gollust SE, Golberstein E, Hefner JL. Prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among university students. American journal of orthopsychiatry. 2007;77(4):534–42. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.534 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref012] 12.Andrews B, Wilding JM. The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. Br J Psychol. 2004;95(Pt 4):509–21. doi: 10.1348/0007126042369802 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref013] 13.Kenney SR, Ott M, Meisel MK, Barnett NP. Alcohol perceptions and behavior in a residential peer social network. Addict Behav. 2017;64:143–7. Epub 20160901. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.047 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref014] 14.Lim H, Heckman S, Montalto CP, Letkiewicz J. Financial stress, self-efficacy, and financial help-seeking behavior of college students. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning. 2014;25(2):148–60. doi: 10.35794/jmbi.v9i1.40983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref015] 15.Newton TL, Ohrt JH. Infusing mindfulness-based interventions in support groups for grieving college students. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work. 2018;43(2):166–83. doi: 10.1080/01933922.2018.1431347 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref016] 16.Wang X, Hegde S, Son C, Keller B, Smith A, Sasangohar F. Investigating Mental Health of US College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e22817. Epub 20200917. doi: 10.2196/22817 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref017] 17.Alshammari T, Alseraye S, Alqasim R, Rogowska A, Alrasheed N, Alshammari M. Examining anxiety and stress regarding virtual learning in colleges of health sciences: A cross-sectional study in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm J. 2022;30(3):256–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2022.01.010 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref018] 18.García E, Weiss E. COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute. 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref019] 19.Mir IA, Ng SK, Mohd Jamali MNZ, Jabbar MA, Humayra S. Determinants and predictors of mental health during and after COVID-19 lockdown among university students in Malaysia. PloS one. 2023;18(1):e0280562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref020] 20.Yu Z. Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability. 2022;14(8):4388. doi: 10.3390/su14084388 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref021] 21.Meeter M, Bele T, den Hartogh C, Bakker T, de Vries RE, Plak S. College students’ motivation and study results after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. 2020. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/kn6v9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref022] 22.Khandelwal M. Attitudes Towards Mental Health Help-Seeking and Stigma Among College Students: Xavier University; 2023. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref023] 23.Largent C, Giuffrida C. COVID-19’s Impact On The Use Of Media, Educational Performance, And Learning In Children And Adolescents With ADHD Who Engaged In Virtual Learning. 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref024] 24.Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Lewis K. Test score patterns across three COVID-19-impacted school years. Educational Researcher. 2022;51(7):500–6. doi: 10.3102/0013189X221109178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref025] 25.Mothibi G. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between E-Learning and Students’ Academic Achievement in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Practice. 2015;6(9):6–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref026] 26.Göksu İ, Ergün N, Özkan Z, Sakız H. Distance education amid a pandemic: Which psycho-demographic variables affect students in higher education? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2021;37(6):1539–52. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref027] 27.Goudeau S, Sanrey C, Stanczak A, Manstead A, Darnon C. Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(10):1273–81. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref028] 28.Lup O, Mitrea EC. Online Learning During the Pandemic: Assessing Disparities in Student Engagement in higher Education. Journal of Pedagogy—Revista de Pedagogie. 2021;LXIX:31–50. doi: 10.26755/RevPed/2021.1/31 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref029] 29.Felson J, Adamczyk A. Online or in Person? Examining College Decisions to Reopen during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Fall 2020. Socius. 2021;7:2378023120988203. Epub 20210121. doi: 10.1177/2378023120988203 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref030] 30.Tran A, Kerkstra RL, Gardocki SL, Papuga SC. Lessons Learned: Teaching In-Person During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Education. 2021;6. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.690646 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref031] 31.Liverpool S, Moinuddin M, Aithal S, Owen M, Bracegirdle K, Caravotta M, et al. Mental health and wellbeing of further and higher education students returning to face-to-face learning after Covid-19 restrictions. PLoS One. 2023;18(1):e0280689. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref032] 32.Fox MD, Bailey DC, Seamon MD, Miranda ML. Response to a COVID-19 outbreak on a university campus—Indiana, August 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2021;70(4):118. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7004a3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref033] 33.Rashid S, Shaikh S, Mardini L, Saad FS. Back to School: COVID-19 Post-Lockdown Classroom Anxiety. Education Sciences. 2022;12(11):800. doi: 10.3390/educsci12110800 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref034] 34.Travis SA, Best AA, Bochniak KS, Dunteman ND, Fellinger J, Folkert PD, et al. Providing a Safe, In-Person, Residential College Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front Public Health. 2021;9:672344. Epub 20210623. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.672344 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref035] 35.Zafarnejad R, Griffin PM. Assessing school-based policy actions for COVID-19: An agent-based analysis of incremental infection risk. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2021;134:104518. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref036] 36.Chang J, Yuan Y, Wang D. Mental health status and its influencing factors among college students during the epidemic of COVID-19. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2020:171–6. doi: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2020.02.06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref037] 37.Islam MA, Barna SD, Raihan H, Khan MNA, Hossain MT. Depression and anxiety among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: A web-based cross-sectional survey. PloS one. 2020;15(8):e0238162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref038] 38.Pramukti I, Strong C, Sitthimongkol Y, Setiawan A, Pandin MGR, Yen C-F, et al. Anxiety and suicidal thoughts during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-country comparative study among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai university students. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020;22(12):e24487. doi: 10.2196/24487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref039] 39.Pfefferbaum B, North CS. Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):510–2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref040] 40.Diaz-Jimenez RMP, Caravaca-Sanchez FP, Martin-Cano MCP, De la Fuente-Robles YMP. Anxiety levels among social work students during the COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Soc Work Health Care. 2020;59(9–10):681–93. Epub 20201209. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2020.1859044 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref041] 41.Altermatt ER. Academic Support From Peers as a Predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy Among College Students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 2016;21(1):21–37. doi: 10.1177/1521025116686588 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref042] 42.Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR. Social Support: The Search for Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1990;9(1):133–47. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref043] 43.Noel JK, Lakhan HA, Sammartino CJ, Rosenthal SR. Depressive and anxiety symptoms in first generation college students. J Am Coll Health. 2021:1–10. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1950727 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref044] 44.Suresh R, Alam A, Karkossa Z. Using Peer Support to Strengthen Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:714181. Epub 20210712. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.714181 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref045] 45.Ghazawy ER, Ewis AA, Mahfouz EM, Khalil DM, Arafa A, Mohammed Z, et al. Psychological impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the university students in Egypt. Health Promot Int. 2021;36(4):1116–25. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaa147 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref046] 46.CONEVAL. Indicadores de pobreza laboral Mexico City: Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social; 2023 [cited 2023 7/19/2023]. https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/Documents/ITLP_IS/2023/1T2023/Indicadores_pobreza_laboral_nacional_y_estatal_Mayo_2023.pdf#search=Ciudad%20Juarez%202020.

[pone.0285650.ref047] 47.María Fernanda G-L, Sandra Alicia R-L, Luis Eduardo J-N, Alva Rocío C-G, Carlos A-Q, Geovanni Alexis G-O, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with anxiety and depression symptoms in adults from Chihuahua City, Mexico during COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures: Prevalencia y factores asociados a síntomas de ansiedad y depresión en adultos de la ciudad de Chihuahua, México durante la pandemia COVID-19 y las medidas de aislamiento. TECNOCIENCIA Chihuahua. 2022;16(1). doi: 10.54167/tecnociencia.v16i1.889 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref048] 48.Gurbuz O, Aldrete RM, Salgado DC, Gürbüz T. Transportation as a Disease Vector in COVID-19: Border Mobility and Disease Spread. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2023. doi: 10.1177/03611981231156588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref049] 49.Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref050] 50.Gómez García C. Intervención BIEN++ para optimizar el bienestar subjetivo, la resiliencia y disminuir la fatiga laboral prolongada del personal de salud en Cd. Juárez. Leiner de la Cabada M, editor: Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez; 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref051] 51.Coughlan J, Hooper D, Mullen M. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Dublin Institute of Technology, 2008. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref052] 52.Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/bf02291170 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref053] 53.Shin M, Hickey K. Needs a little TLC: examining college students’ emergency remote teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2020;45(7):973–86. doi: 10.1080/0309877x.2020.1847261 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref054] 54.Feng S, Zhang Q, Ho SMY. Fear and anxiety about COVID-19 among local and overseas Chinese university students. Health Soc Care Community. 2021;29(6):e249–e58. Epub 20210406. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13347 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref055] 55.Ma Y, Chen SC, Zeng H. Male student nurses need more support: Understanding the determinants and consequences of career adaptability in nursing college students. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;91:104435. Epub 20200511. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104435 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref056] 56.Bartoszuk K, Deal JE, Yerhot M. Parents’ and College Students’ Perceptions of Support and Family Environment. Emerging Adulthood. 2019;9(1):76–87. doi: 10.1177/2167696818823947 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref057] 57.Rodriguez SL, Garbee K, Martínez-Podolsky E. Coping With College Obstacles: The Complicated Role of Familia for First-Generation Mexican American College Students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 2019;20(1):75–90. doi: 10.1177/1538192719835683 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref058] 58.Giusti L, Salza A, Mammarella S, Bianco D, Ussorio D, Casacchia M, et al. #Everything Will Be Fine. Duration of Home Confinement and "All-or-Nothing" Cognitive Thinking Style as Predictors of Traumatic Distress in Young University Students on a Digital Platform During the COVID-19 Italian Lockdown. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:574812. Epub 20201215. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.574812 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref059] 59.Lee J, Jeong HJ, Kim S. Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Among Undergraduate Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic and their Use of Mental Health Services. Innovative Higher Education. 2021;46(5):519–38. doi: 10.1007/s10755-021-09552-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref060] 60.Fletcher I, Castle M, Scarpa A, Myers O, Lawrence E. An exploration of medical student attitudes towards disclosure of mental illness. Medical Education Online. 2020;25(1):1727713. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2020.1727713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref061] 61.Oliveira C, Pereira A, Vagos P, Nóbrega C, Gonçalves J, Afonso B. Effectiveness of mobile app-based psychological interventions for college students: a systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in psychology. 2021;12:647606. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref062] 62.Kivlighan DM III, Schreier BA, Gates C, Hong JE, Corkery JM, Anderson CL, et al. The role of mental health counseling in college students’ academic success: An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2021;68(5):562. doi: 10.1037/cou0000534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref063] 63.Naidoo P, Cartwright D. Where to from Here? Contemplating the Impact of COVID-19 on South African Students and Student Counseling Services in Higher Education. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. 2022;36(4):355–69. doi: 10.1080/87568225.2020.1842279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285650.ref064] 64.Helmbrecht B, Ayars C. Predictors of Stress in First-Generation College Students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 2021;58(2):214–26. doi: 10.1080/19496591.2020.1853552 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Variations in anxiety and emotional support among first-year college students across different learning modes (distance and face-to-face) during COVID-19

Flor Rocío Ramírez-Martínez

Maria Theresa Villanos

Sonam Sharma

Marie Leiner

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Review of related research

Materials and methods

Ethical approval

Study design

University psychological support program and contextual factors

Participants

Measures

Procedure

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1. Participant socio-demographic characteristics for each semester.

Table 2. Participants non-transformed anxiety and emotional support scores across semesters.

Fig 1. Estimated marginal means for anxiety by semester adjusted by gender.

Fig 2. Estimated marginal means for emotional support by semester adjusted by gender.

Anxiety and emotional relationships

Discussion

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Syed Far Abid Hossain

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Jin Su Jeong

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Jin Su Jeong

Roles

Acceptance letter

Jin Su Jeong

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases