Social integration, adaptation, and satisfaction with university life in first-year students at a university in southern Chile

Abstract

Although enrollment in higher education in Chile has been increasing, there is currently a dropout rate of approximately 25% during the first year of university. Previous studies indicate that these dropout levels are related to academic, psychological, and social factors, such as adaptation to university life and students’ social integration. However, the role that social integration may play in the relationship between adaptation to university life and life satisfaction among students at a regional university in southern Chile remains unclear. The aim of the study was to examine the moderating role of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life, while also exploring its potential mediating role in first-year students from the Faculty of Health Sciences who participate in the Host Peer Program. Through a quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive-correlational study, 235 participants completed an online survey. Descriptive and group difference analyses were conducted. The results indicate that social integration moderates the relationship between adaptation and satisfaction with university life. In contrast, the mediation analysis showed that social integration does not mediate this relationship; however, social integration was positively associated with higher levels of satisfaction with university life. These findings contribute to understanding how these variables are related during the first year of university in a regional context and highlight the relevance of promoting social integration as a key factor for students’ well-being.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-026-04464-y.

Introduction

Emerging adulthood is a transitional period between adolescence and adulthood, characteristic of industrialized societies. During this stage, young people are actively exploring their identity, their educational and occupational trajectories, and also building significant interpersonal relationships [1]. At this point, they make crucial decisions about their life projects, such as starting a working life or continuing their formal education [2].

Despite the sustained increase in the number of young people entering the higher education system in Chile, as well as high retention rates during the first year of university 77.3% in 2024 [3], there is still a group of young people who drop out during the early years of university, which is mainly attributed to psychosocial and academic factors [4]. In fact, recent data show that in 2024, only 74.3% of students who entered a university in Chile completed their higher education studies, with a decrease of − 2.7% in the undergraduate graduation rate compared to 2023. This decline is more significant for universities than for other higher education institutions, such as institutes or technical training centers [5]. This scenario highlights the need to analyze the psychosocial factors that affect student persistence, such as adaptation to university life, social well-being, and satisfaction with university life throughout the academic trajectory [4].

In the Chilean context, several studies have examined the role of psychosocial and socio-academic variables in students’ adaptation and persistence. For instance, perceived social support has been shown to predict changes in affective and eudaimonic well-being among university students [6]. Similarly, social support, academic engagement, and autonomy have been associated with dropout intention in first-year students [7]. More recently, early socio-academic variables, including social support and integration, have been identified as relevant predictors of dropout intention, highlighting the importance of relational factors in students’ academic trajectories [8]. In addition, gender differences have been reported in socioemotional competencies, such as empathy and prosocial behavior, which may influence adaptation processes in university contexts [9–10].

Arias-Ortega and cols [11] propose that adaptation to university life is conceived as a dynamic process of transition and adjustment that students experience, especially during the first year, when facing an academic, social, and emotional environment that is initially unfamiliar.

This process is multidimensional and includes academic adaptation, social adaptation, and institutional commitment, which refers to the level of satisfaction and sense of belonging toward the institution [12]. This multidimensional nature has also been highlighted in integrative and systematic reviews, which describe adaptation to university life as a dynamic process influenced by academic, social, and emotional factors that evolve over time [12–14]. In particular, social adjustment refers to students’ success in coping with the interpersonal and social demands of university life [15]. It is associated with the way students socially integrate into the university context, ranging from their participation in university activities to the establishment of new interpersonal relationships [7]. Evidence indicates that successful adaptation is positively related to better academic performance, lower levels of stress, and greater psychological well-being [16].

There are diverse variables that play an important role in this process of university adaptation. Among them, socioemotional skills [17], the availability of social support networks, coping strategies, and the perception of academic and institutional support stand out [18]. These factors make it possible to predict both successful adaptation and the risk of early dropout.

For its part, social well-being has been defined as individuals’ perception of the quality of their integration and participation in their social environment, constituting a fundamental component of overall psychological well-being [19–20]. This framework provides a broad understanding of individuals’ functioning within the social context. However, the present study focuses specifically on the dimension of social integration, which refers to the perception of belonging, interpersonal connection, and being part of a social network [20]. From this perspective, social integration is closely related to constructs such as perceived social support, sense of belonging, and social connection, which have been identified as key factors in students’ adjustment and well-being in higher education contexts [6, 7, 18].

In this sense, although social integration is conceptually embedded within the broader framework of social well-being, it is addressed here as a distinct relational dimension, particularly relevant for understanding how students experience their connection to the university environment.

In addition, previous work has identified social integration as a relevant factor in facilitating university adaptation, particularly through institutional and peer-based support strategies. For example, Matus et al. [21] highlight the role of social integration initiatives in promoting students’ adjustment and retention during the first year of university. Consistent with this, evidence suggests that social well-being and perceived social support are associated with greater persistence and higher levels of satisfaction among university students [6].

As observed, social components such as social adjustment and social well-being play a fundamental role during the university stage. Although they may share common roots, it is important to consider that they refer to different levels of the social experience when examining the items used to measure these constructs. This distinction is particularly relevant, as the conceptual proximity between these dimensions may lead to potential overlap if not clearly specified.

In this regard, social adjustment refers to an initial adaptation to the academic context, related to fitting in, recognizing, and using the social skills required for the academic stage [20]. It reflects students’ capacity to respond to the interpersonal demands of university life and is closely linked to the broader process of adaptation.

In contrast, social integration reflects a more evaluative and relational dimension, involving the perception of belonging, recognition, and being valued within the university community [7]. This construct goes beyond the acquisition of social skills, encompassing a subjective appraisal of one’s position within the social environment.

From this perspective, although both constructs are related, they capture theoretically distinguishable aspects of students’ social experience. While social adjustment reflects a process of adaptation to social demands, social integration reflects the perceived quality and meaning of social relationships within the university context. This distinction allows for their analytical separation and supports the examination of their potentially different roles in relation to student well-being. Consequently, social integration may not necessarily be a direct outcome of successful adaptation, but rather a distinct dimension that depends on contextual and relational factors, which may shape how adaptation processes are translated into satisfaction with university life.

The latter can be defined as the positive evaluation that a person makes of their life in general, or of particular aspects of it (family, studies, work, health, friends, leisure time) [22]. It refers to satisfaction and feelings of congruence between desires or needs and achievements or resources [23]. Studies suggest that, in general, university students report being satisfied with their lives in the intellectual, emotional, and social domains, while they report dissatisfaction in the physical and economic domains [24]. In addition, several studies indicate that living with parents during the university period and tangible and intangible family social support are associated with better eating habits and better emotional health, as well as greater satisfaction with life and diet [25–28].

The relationship between these variables is complex and dynamic. Previous research has consistently shown that adaptation to university life, social integration, and well-being are closely interrelated [29–30]. However, despite this evidence, the specific role that social integration plays in linking adaptation and satisfaction remains insufficiently specified, particularly in terms of whether it operates as a contextual condition or as a mechanism.

Recent research indicates that a high perception of social support and integration is related to higher levels of subjective well-being, better academic adaptation, and a lower intention to drop out [7–31]. Conversely, experiences of loneliness, lack of integration, or discrimination can negatively impact both social well-being and academic performance [32].

A study with first-year university students indicated that a positive evaluation of institutional resources, teaching quality, and student participation was related to greater life satisfaction [33]. In addition, it has been shown that interventions aimed at improving social well-being and developing socioemotional skills are effective in facilitating university adaptation, reducing dropout rates, and fostering academic success [34–35].

This phenomenon becomes even more complex when observed in the context of a regional university, such as the Universidad Católica de Temuco, which is located in an area with high levels of rurality and poverty. Many first-year students come from rural areas and have had educational trajectories marked by significant structural and socioeconomic gaps [36–37]. Most are the first generation in their families to attend university and face a cultural and academic environment that is very different from what they know, which further complicates their adaptation process [38].

In addition, it is important to consider that programs in the health sciences may present particular academic and contextual demands compared to other disciplines, including intensive workloads and high emotional demands, especially in the early stages of training. These characteristics may influence students’ adaptation and persistence processes [4, 36–37].

In these contexts, there are several factors that increase the risk of early dropout, such as uprooting, the lack of local support networks, the need to work to finance studies, and gaps in basic academic skills. In addition, integration into the university is affected by low participation in extracurricular activities, technological barriers, and social stigmas that are often associated with rural origin [39–40]. These challenges may be particularly demanding in programs with high academic and emotional requirements, such as those in the health sciences, which can intensify the demands associated with the adaptation process.

Faced with this situation, regional universities play a crucial role in creating inclusion and support strategies [38]. An example of this is the Host Peer Program of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the Universidad Católica de Temuco, which seeks to address these gaps by fostering connections between first-year students and those in more advanced years; all first-year students across the Faculty’s programs participate in this initiative. Through these interactions, the program seeks to promote social integration, strengthening the sense of belonging and social well-being. Since its inception, the program has benefited more than one thousand students, becoming a valuable experience in supporting the transition to university life.

Initiatives such as this are essential in contexts of high vulnerability, as they address critical psychosocial factors that influence persistence and academic success, improving both adaptive capacity and the perception of well-being and integration within the university environment [11, 40].

The present study focuses on first-year students from the Faculty of Health Sciences who participate in the Host Peer Program. Although previous research has documented a close relationship between adaptation to university life, social well-being, and life satisfaction, the specific role of social integration in linking adaptation and satisfaction remains insufficiently specified. In particular, it is unclear whether social integration operates as a contextual condition that shapes this relationship or as a mechanism through which adaptation translates into higher levels of satisfaction. This distinction is especially relevant in regional university contexts, where opportunities for social connection may depend more on institutional and relational conditions than on individual adaptive capacities [36–40].

Considering this background, the present study aimed to examine the role of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life among first-year students from the Faculty of Health Sciences who participate in the Host Peer Program. More specifically, the study focused on analyzing whether social integration acts as a moderating factor in this relationship, while also exploring its potential role as a mediating variable.

Based on the literature reviewed, it was expected that social integration would play a moderating role, such that the association between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life would be stronger among students with higher levels of social integration. This expectation is grounded in the understanding of social integration as a relational and contextual resource that enhances the effects of individual adjustment on well-being. At the same time, and considering previous evidence suggesting a close link between adaptation processes and social well-being, it was also explored whether social integration could operate as a mediating mechanism, through which higher levels of adaptation would be associated with greater social integration, and in turn, with higher levels of satisfaction with university life.

Method

Design

The study employed a quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional, and correlational design. This type of design is appropriate for analyzing relationships among psychological variables without experimental manipulation, particularly in educational contexts [41–42].

Participants

The sample consisted of 235 first-year students from the Faculty of Health Sciences, enrolled in the six degree programs of the Faculty of Health Sciences: Kinesiology (24.3%), Psychology (19.6%), Nutrition and Dietetics (16.6%), Speech Therapy (16.6%), Medical Technology (12.8%), and Occupational Therapy (10.2%). A non-probabilistic convenience sampling method was used, which is common in exploratory and explanatory university studies [43].

Participants met the following inclusion criteria: (a) being enrolled in the first year of one of the degree programs of the Faculty of Health Sciences, and (b) belonging to the Host Peer Program. The exclusion criteria were: (a) individuals with visual or auditory disabilities, as the instruments were not adapted for these conditions, and (b) having studied another degree program in the previous semester at the same institution.

Regarding the sample, 74.9% identified as female, 24.3% as male, and 0.9% identified as non-binary. Participants reported a mean age of 18.73 years (SD = 1.63), with a range between 17 and 28 years. With respect to place of origin, 66% of students came from urban areas and 34% from rural areas.

In terms of socioeconomic status, 50.6% self-identified as low, 48.5% as middle, and 0.9% as high. Socioeconomic status was assessed through self-report, as this approach captures individuals’ subjective perception of their social position, which has been shown to be particularly relevant in research on well-being and life satisfaction [22–23]. In this sense, perceived socioeconomic status may be more closely related to psychological outcomes than objective indicators, as it reflects how individuals interpret their social standing within a given context. Although in the Chilean context socioeconomic status can often be approximated through objective indicators such as type of educational institution, the use of self-reported measures was considered appropriate for the purposes of this study, given its focus on subjective well-being and students’ evaluative experiences.

Instruments

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; [44] )

This instrument aims to assess the degree of adaptation that students have to the university environment, considering different factors. A Chilean adaptation was used [7], consisting of 38 items distributed across four factors: personal–emotional adjustment, social adjustment, institutional adjustment, and academic adjustment [7]. This self-report instrument uses a seven-point Likert-type response format (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater adaptation to university. The instrument has shown appropriate evidence of validity based on its internal structure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses [7, 44]. The scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with a McDonald’s ω of 0.79 in the present study.

Social well-being scale [45]

The version adapted into Spanish by Blanco and Díaz [19] was used. This instrument seeks to measure individuals’ level of social well-being through 30 items distributed across five dimensions: Social Integration, Social Acceptance, Social Contribution, Social Actualization, and Social Coherence. Specifically, in this study only the first dimension, Social Integration, composed of five items, was used. This decision was theoretically grounded in the study objective, which focuses on the role of perceived belonging, interpersonal connection, and integration within the university context. Social integration captures the extent to which individuals feel part of their social environment and perceive themselves as included and valued within it, which is directly aligned with the constructs examined in this study. However, focusing on a single dimension may limit the assessment of other components of social well-being, which is acknowledged as a limitation of the study.

The response categories are Likert-type with five options (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate a higher level of social well-being. Regarding the overall internal consistency of the instrument, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 has been reported [19]. In the present study, the reliability of the social integration subscale was adequate (McDonald’s ω = 0.81).

Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS; [46] )

The version validated for Chilean students by Denegri Coria and cols [47] was used. The instrument consists of 40 items with direct and reverse wording in a 6-point Likert format (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). It assesses satisfaction across five life domains: family, university, friends, neighborhood, and self. For this study, the university dimension was specifically used, consisting of 8 items that evaluate satisfaction with different aspects related to the academic domain, such as interest in the university, learning, and academic activities. In its Chilean validation, the subscale showed adequate levels of reliability (Cronbach’s α: 0.90 for the full scale and 0.79 for the university subscale), as well as evidence of internal and convergent validity [47]. In the present study, the university subscale showed a reliability coefficient of ω = 0.56.

Sociodemographic questionnaire

A sociodemographic questionnaire was developed to characterize the sample, including questions related to age, gender, degree program, among other variables of interest.

Procedure

The study was disseminated through social media and invitations sent via email. Support for dissemination was obtained from Faculty authorities, including the Dean’s Office and program directors. Both the survey and the informed consent form were administered via the SurveyMonkey platform, accessible from mobile phones and computers, with an average completion time of approximately 13 min. Data were collected between May and July 2023.

Data analysis

First, the data obtained from the SurveyMonkey platform were downloaded into an Excel database and then transferred to the SPSS software. Subsequently, preliminary analyses were conducted to verify the quality of the collected data, and the scores of the variables of interest were computed for subsequent analyses. Next, descriptive and inferential analyses were performed in order to characterize the variables of adaptation to university life, social integration, and satisfaction with university life according to sociodemographic variables such as gender and place of origin (means, standard deviations, and t tests).

Prior to the mediation and moderation analyses, the statistical assumptions of the model were assessed (see supplementary material). No missing values or multivariate outliers were observed. The variables showed acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis, and linear relationships among adaptation to university life, social integration, and life satisfaction were verified. Likewise, variance inflation factor indices indicated the absence of multicollinearity. Considering that the distribution of the indirect effect does not require normality, a bootstrapping procedure was used to estimate confidence intervals [41].

For the moderation analysis, Jamovi 2.7.16 software was used. Regression models were employed to evaluate whether the moderator variable (W) modifies the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y), estimating the interaction term (X × W) and assessing its significance through bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples to obtain bias-corrected confidence intervals. If the interaction proved significant, simple slope analyses were conducted and line graphs were generated to facilitate the interpretation and visualization of the moderating effect. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all analyses [41, 42].

The mediation analysis was conducted following contemporary models of indirect effects, considering social integration as the mediating variable between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life. Direct, indirect, and total effects were estimated using bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals, a method recommended for its greater statistical power and lower dependence on normality assumptions [41, 48]. The significance level was set at p < 0.05, and analyses were performed using JASP 0.19.1.0.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the sponsoring university (CEIUCT0417003/23), thus ensuring the proper handling, safeguarding, and confidentiality of the data. Also, the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles for research involving human beings established in the Declaration of Helsinki [49]. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained, and data confidentiality was guaranteed. The information collected was used exclusively for academic and research purposes.

Results

Descriptive analyses

Regarding university adaptation, there are significant differences in the personal-emotional adjustment dimension, with women obtaining a higher mean. There are no significant gender differences in the scores obtained for the social integration and satisfaction with university life dimensions. With respect to participants’ place of origin, there are no significant differences in any of the scales assessed (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and Student’s t test for the social integration, adaptation to university life, and satisfaction with university life scales according to gender and place of origin

Scale	Dimension	Female M (SD)	Male M (SD)	t (p value)	Rural M (SD)	Urban M (SD)	t (p value)
Social Well-Being	Social Integration	3.27 (0.59)	3.37 (0.66)	-1.213 (0.226)	3.13 (0.73)	3.23 (0.66)	-0.978 (p = 0.329)
Student Adaptation to university	Personal–Emotional Adjustment	5.12 (0.95)	4.42 (1.07)	4,709 (p < 0.001)	5.06 (0.99)	4.91 (1.04)	1.028 (p = 0.305)
	Social Adjustment	5.00 (0.81)	4.99 (0.81)	0.031 (p = 0.975)	4.86 (0.85)	5.04 (0.82)	-1.583 (p = 0.115)
	Institutional Adjustment	2.35 (0.90)	2.32 (0.82)	0.205 (p = 0.838)	2.43 (0.97)	2.30 (0.84)	1.067 (p = 0.288)
	Academic Adjustment	5.15 (1.04)	4.93 (1.05)	1.387 (p = 0.167)	5.15 (1.04)	5.08 (1.05)	0.502 (p = 0.616)
Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction	University	3.88 (0.03)	3.95 (0.05)	-1.146 (p = 0.253)	3.87 (0.36)	3.91 (0.46)	-0.705 (p = 0.482)

Moderation and mediation analyses

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the moderating role of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life. All continuous variables were mean-centered prior to the creation of the interaction term.

In the first step, adaptation to university life and social integration were entered as predictors, explaining 2.9% of the variance in satisfaction with university life (R² = 0.029). In the second step, the interaction term between adaptation and social integration was added, resulting in a significant increase in explained variance (ΔR² = 0.048), with the full model accounting for 7.7% of the variance (R² = 0.077).

The interaction effect was statistically significant (b = 0.279, SE = 0.080, p < 0.001), indicating that the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life varies as a function of social integration (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Moderation model of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life. Note. Values represent unstandardized regression coefficients. The interaction term (adaptation × social integration) was statistically significant (b = 0.279, p < .001). ns = non-significant

To further examine the nature of this interaction, simple slopes analyses were conducted at low (− 1 SD), mean, and high (+ 1 SD) levels of social integration. The results indicated that the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life was positive and statistically significant at high levels of social integration (b = 0.256, SE = 0.073, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.111, 0.405]). In contrast, the association was not statistically significant at mean levels (b = 0.088, SE = 0.068, p = 0.244, 95% CI [-0.052, 0.230]) or at low levels of social integration (b = -0.096, SE = 0.114, p = 0.397, 95% CI [-0.310, 0.137]).

These findings indicate that adaptation to university life is positively associated with satisfaction with university life only at higher levels of social integration.

It was then assessed whether social integration mediated the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life in first-year students. The mediation model was examined by estimating the direct, indirect, and total effects, as well as the specific paths involved in the model (see Fig. 2). Unless otherwise specified, all reported coefficients correspond to unstandardized regression coefficients (b).

Fig. 2.

Mediation model of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life. Note. Values represent standardized coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals. The indirect effect was not statistically significant. p < 0.05

Regarding the individual paths, adaptation to university life did not significantly predict social integration (path a: b = -0.117, SE = 0.089, p = .190), indicating that higher levels of adaptation were not associated with greater social integration. In turn, social integration showed a positive and statistically significant association with satisfaction with university life (path b: b = 0.114, SE = 0.040, p = .005), suggesting that higher levels of social integration are associated with greater satisfaction with university life. Concerning the direct effect, adaptation to university life showed a positive but non-significant effect on satisfaction with university life (path c’: b = 0.135, SE = 0.077, p = 0.079, 95% CI [-0.027, 0.266]).

The indirect effect was estimated using bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals. The indirect effect of university adaptation on satisfaction with university life through social integration was not significant (b = -0.016, SE = 0.013, p = 0.224, 95% CI [-0.048, 0.004]), as the confidence interval included zero.

Similarly, the total effect of the model did not reach statistical significance (b = 0.119, SE = 0.079, p = 0.133, 95% CI [-0.040, 0.257]). Taken together, these results indicate that social integration does not mediate the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life in the analyzed sample, despite the significant association between social integration and satisfaction. The model explained a small proportion of variance in satisfaction with university life (R² = 0.043) and in social integration (R² = 0.003).

Discussion

The aim of the study was to examine the role of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life. To this end, both a moderation and a mediation model were tested.

With regard to the descriptive analyses, the results indicate that no statistically significant differences in social integration were observed according to gender or place of origin among students of the Faculty of Health Sciences. These findings suggest that students tend to report similar levels of social integration across these groups, although the absence of statistically significant differences should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. Jusri and Lechner [50] argue that the quality of relationships among students and with faculty would predict better indicators of social integration.

Regarding the adaptation to university life scale, a relevant aspect is that women presented higher scores on the personal-emotional adjustment subscale. This finding is consistent with studies indicating that female university students tend to report higher levels of prosocial skills and competencies related to empathy and altruism [9–10], which may facilitate personal–emotional adjustment. However, this pattern should be interpreted with caution, as the overrepresentation of women in the sample may have influenced the overall results, particularly in dimensions related to emotional adjustment.

At the same time, the results indicating no statistically significant differences in social integration according to place of origin (rural or urban) are encouraging, as they suggest that, despite the structural gaps mentioned by Castro-Martínez & Machuca-Téllez [39] and Leyton et al. [40], the immediate environment of the Faculty could help mitigate the initial uprooting experienced by students from rural backgrounds.

Regarding the results related to satisfaction with university life, no statistically significant differences were observed by gender or place of origin. This may be due to the fact that satisfaction with university life is more closely associated with socioemotional or socioaffective components than with students’ sociodemographic characteristics, such as gender and place of origin [51].

Beyond these descriptive findings, the results of the inferential analyses provide further insight into the relationship between the study variables. In line with this, the results of the moderation analysis provide additional insight into the role of social integration. Specifically, adaptation to university life was positively associated with satisfaction only among students with higher levels of social integration, whereas this relationship was not significant at lower levels. This pattern suggests that social integration functions as a facilitating condition that enables adaptation to be translated into a more positive evaluation of the university experience. These findings suggest that the effect of adaptation on satisfaction is not uniform, but conditional upon the relational context in which students are embedded.

An additional aspect to consider in the interpretation of these findings is the conceptual proximity between social adjustment, as assessed by the SACQ, and social integration, as a dimension of social well-being. Both constructs refer to students’ experiences within the social context of the university; however, they capture different aspects of this experience. While social adjustment reflects students’ ability to cope with interpersonal demands and navigate the social environment, social integration reflects a more evaluative dimension, related to the perception of belonging, recognition, and being valued within the university community [7–20].

In this sense, the observed moderation effect is unlikely to be explained solely by conceptual overlap between these constructs. Rather, it suggests that the perception of being socially integrated shapes the extent to which adaptation processes are associated with satisfaction with university life. Thus, even when students are able to adjust to social demands, the absence of a sense of belonging may limit the positive impact of this adjustment on their overall university experience.

Furthermore, the absence of a significant association between adaptation to university life and social integration deserves particular attention. Although previous studies have suggested that adaptive processes are linked to social outcomes, this relationship may depend on contextual and relational conditions rather than emerging directly from individual adjustment. In early stages of the university experience, students may begin to adapt to academic demands without having yet established meaningful social connections or a stable sense of belonging. In this sense, social integration may not necessarily follow from adaptation, but rather depend on opportunities for interaction, institutional support, and the quality of social experiences within the university context [18, 50].

In contrast, the mediation analysis showed that social integration did not mediate the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life, as adaptation was not significantly associated with social integration. This finding suggests that adaptation and social integration may not operate as sequential processes, but rather as partially independent dimensions of the student experience.

This result can be better understood in light of theoretical approaches that distinguish between adjustment to academic demands and the subjective experience of social belonging. While adaptation to university life involves cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses to academic and institutional challenges, social integration reflects a more evaluative and relational dimension, associated with the perception of being part of and valued within the university community [20, 45]. In this sense, being well adapted to academic demands does not necessarily imply being socially integrated, as these processes may depend on different antecedents, such as individual competencies, prior experiences, or opportunities for social interaction within the institutional context [50]. This interpretation is particularly relevant in the context of health sciences programs, which are characterized by high academic and emotional demands. These contextual conditions may shape the relationship between adaptation and social integration, influencing how students translate their adjustment processes into satisfaction with university life.

Additionally, the timing of data collection should be considered when interpreting these findings. Data were collected between May and July, during the early stages of the first academic semester, when social integration processes may still be in development. Adaptation to university life is a dynamic process that evolves over time, and it is possible that, at this stage, students have begun to adjust to academic demands but have not yet fully consolidated their social networks or sense of belonging. From this perspective, the absence of a mediating effect may reflect the temporal asynchrony between these processes, rather than the absence of a relationship per se.

From this perspective, the absence of a mediating effect suggests that social integration does not operate as a mechanism through which adaptation is translated into satisfaction at this stage of the academic trajectory.

This finding is also consistent with other studies that emphasize the role of perceived social support in these relationships. An example is the study by Restrepo and cols [18], which indicates that perceived social support (from friends, parents, and the institution) generates a perception of being accepted, which increases students’ sense of belonging, health, and well-being. This support acts as a “buffer” against stress and promotes overall satisfaction with the educational process. Therefore, a student may not be fully adapted to study methods or the institutional system; however, being socially integrated provides emotional resources that enhance their satisfaction.

In this sense, experiences of acceptance, support, and interpersonal connection foster a more positive evaluation of the university experience, which translates into higher levels of satisfaction with university life [6, 7]. High levels of social integration not only imply greater insertion into the academic social environment, but also a subjective experience of support and belonging that constitutes a central component of university satisfaction [12, 23].

Maluenda-Albornoz and cols [8] highlight that social support from peers and professors is a modifiable variable that can be intervened early to improve the educational trajectory, which reinforces the importance of promoting social integration; adaptation alone may be insufficient if students do not experience a sense of belonging and recognition within their academic community. This reinforces the idea that higher education institutions should promote policies that not only level technical competencies, but also prioritize the creation of support networks and a sense of belonging [11, 52], such as the Host Peer Program.

In this context, institutional initiatives such as the Host Peer Program may represent a relevant strategy for promoting social integration and supporting students’ well-being during the transition to university life. In line with the present findings, it may be particularly important for these programs to not only facilitate initial peer connections, but also to promote experiences of belonging, validation, and recognition among first-year students. This could involve strengthening activities that encourage meaningful interactions and a sense of being valued within the university community. However, the present study does not allow for evaluating the effects of this program, and therefore these findings should be interpreted as highlighting potential implications rather than providing evidence of its effectiveness.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. All participants belonged to the Host Peer Program of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the Universidad Católica de Temuco. Although this program is implemented with all first-year students in the Faculty, the findings should be interpreted within this specific institutional context. Participation in the program may influence students’ opportunities for social interaction and support, which could restrict variability in levels of social integration. In addition, as participants were involved in an institutional support initiative, responses may have been influenced by social desirability, with students potentially reporting more positive perceptions of their integration, adaptation, and well-being. Furthermore, because all participants were part of the program, it is not possible to determine whether the observed levels of integration and adaptation are associated with the program itself or whether similar patterns would be observed among students who do not receive this type of support. Future studies could address this limitation by including a comparison or control group of students who do not participate in the program, which would allow a more precise examination of its potential effects. Finally, providing a more detailed description of the program’s characteristics and implementation may help to better contextualize and interpret the findings.

In addition, although the Social Well-Being Scale is a multidimensional instrument, only the social integration subscale was used in this study. While this dimension is conceptually aligned with the study objective, this decision may limit the assessment of other relevant aspects of social well-being, such as social acceptance, contribution, and coherence, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of students’ social functioning.

Additionally, socioeconomic status was measured through self-report and was not included in the main analyses. Although perceived socioeconomic status has been shown to be relevant for understanding well-being and life satisfaction [22–23], it was not the primary focus of the present study. Future research could incorporate both subjective and objective indicators in order to better capture the complexity of this variable in the Chilean context.

Furthermore, the sample was composed mainly of women, which may have influenced the results, particularly in variables related to socioemotional competencies and adjustment [9–10]. Future studies could aim for a more balanced gender distribution in order to examine potential differences more systematically. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the programs within this Faculty have higher female enrollment; therefore, the data obtained represent the trend within this Faculty [53].

Another limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which captures the relationships among variables at a single point in time and therefore limits the ability to draw causal inferences. In particular, this design prevents determining the direction of the relationships observed among the variables. For instance, it is possible that students who report greater life satisfaction are more likely to actively seek social interactions and opportunities for integration, which in turn may facilitate their adaptation to university life. Future research could address this limitation by incorporating longitudinal designs that allow the examination of changes and trajectories in adaptation to university life, social integration, and life satisfaction over time. In addition, longitudinal approaches would make it possible to better assess the potential influence of participation in the Host Peer Program on these processes.

Overall, these findings highlight the importance of social integration as a key contextual factor in students’ well-being, particularly during the early stages of university life, where adaptation processes are still developing.

Conclusions

The present study provides evidence on the role of social integration in the relationship between adaptation to university life and satisfaction with university life among first-year students from the Faculty of Health Sciences who participate in the Host Peer Program at a university in southern Chile.

The findings indicate that social integration plays a significant moderating role in this relationship, such that adaptation to university life is positively associated with satisfaction only among students with higher levels of social integration. This highlights the importance of relational and contextual factors, particularly the sense of belonging and perceived recognition within the university community, in shaping students’ well-being during the transition to higher education.

In contrast, social integration did not mediate the relationship between adaptation and satisfaction, suggesting that these variables may operate as partially independent dimensions, at least during the early stages of the academic trajectory. This finding should be interpreted considering the timing of data collection, as social integration processes may still be under development during the first months of university.

These results are specific to the studied sample and institutional context and should be interpreted accordingly. Nevertheless, they underscore the relevance of promoting social integration as a key factor in supporting first-year students’ well-being. In this sense, institutional initiatives such as the Host Peer Program may play an important role in fostering social connections and a sense of belonging, which in turn may enhance the positive effects of adaptation on students’ university experience.

Authors’ contributions

LVB, ABH and BE were involved in literature review, and writing of manuscript; LVB and ABH were involved in data collection, design of the study and statistical analysis. All authors have read and approved the final version of the study.

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidad Católica de Temuco (CEIUCT0417003/23), thus ensuring the proper handling, safeguarding, and confidentiality of the data. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association. The study involved confidentiality and voluntary participation and posed minimal risk to participants. Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants prior to data collection.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.