University of Adelaide, South Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;44(7):608-15. doi: 10.3109/00048671003649052.
The aim of this research was to assess tertiary student distress levels with regards to (i) comparisons with normative population data, and (ii) the effects of discipline, year level, and student characteristics. Self-reported treatment rates and level of concern regarding perceived distress were also collected.
Students from all six years of an undergraduate medical course were compared with samples from Psychology, Law and Mechanical Engineering courses at the University of Adelaide, Australia. Students participated in one of three studies that were either web-based or paper-based. All studies included Kessler's Measure of Psychological Distress (K10), and questions pertaining to treatment for any mental health problems and concern regarding distress experienced.
Of the 955 tertiary students who completed the K10, 48% were psychologically distressed (a K10 score > or = 22) which equated to a rate 4.4 times that of age-matched peers. The non-health disciplines were significantly more distressed than the health disciplines. Distress levels were statistically equivalent across all six years of the medical degree. Of tertiary students, 11% had been treated for a mental health problem. Levels of concern correlated with the K10 score.
The results from this research suggest that high distress levels among the tertiary student body may be a phenomenon more widely spread than first thought. Low treatment rates suggest that traditional models of support may be inadequate or not appropriate for tertiary cohorts.
本研究旨在评估大学生的苦恼水平，包括（i）与常模人群数据的比较，以及（ii）学科、年级和学生特征的影响。还收集了自我报告的治疗率和对感知苦恼的关注程度。
将来自澳大利亚阿德莱德大学的本科医学课程的所有六个年级的学生与心理学、法律和机械工程课程的样本进行比较。学生参加了三种研究中的一种，这些研究要么是基于网络的，要么是基于纸质的。所有研究都包括 Kessler 心理困扰量表（K10），以及关于任何心理健康问题的治疗和对所经历的苦恼的关注的问题。
在完成 K10 的 955 名大学生中，48%有心理困扰（K10 得分≥22），这相当于同龄人的 4.4 倍。非健康学科的学生明显比健康学科的学生更苦恼。医学学位的所有六个年级的苦恼水平在统计学上是相等的。在大学生中，11%曾因心理健康问题接受过治疗。关注程度与 K10 得分相关。
本研究的结果表明，大学生群体中的高苦恼水平可能比最初想象的更为普遍。低治疗率表明，传统的支持模式可能不够充分或不适合大学生群体。
