Introduction

Higher education students face persistent stressors, including academic demands, financial responsibilities, adapting to new social environments, and limited family support (Jiang, 2020; Pascoe et al., 2019). These challenges are exacerbated by pressures such as limited free time and fear of failure. The COVID-19 pandemic further intensified these stressors with the shift to online education, leading to increased workload, social isolation, and reduced concentration and productivity (Pajarianto et al., 2020).

More than just “bouncing back,” resilience involves emotional regulation, adaptive coping, and interpersonal relationship-building, promoting well-being and mitigating stress impacts (Meenakshi et al., 2020). It is linked to subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and academic performance (Song et al., 2024). Defined as the process of adapting to challenges with mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility (American Psychological Association, 2024), resilience supports stress management (Southwick & Charney, 2018) and equips students to navigate both academic and professional challenges (Ang et al., 2021).

Resilience fosters emotional and social competencies essential for transforming higher education challenges into growth opportunities (Liu & Boyatzis, 2021). However, limited global data on university students’ resilience (Brewer et al., 2019; Sanderson & Brewer, 2017) hinders targeted interventions. Understanding the prevalence and influencing factors of resilience is vital for designing tailored programs to enhance stress management and overall well-being, and for improving academic and professional outcomes (Abulfaraj et al., 2024).

This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of resilience in higher education students, synthesizing evidence from cross-sectional studies to examine associated factors, methodologies, and global trends. Insights from this research will guide evidence-based strategies to support students in overcoming challenges and fostering holistic development throughout life.

Despite the growing body of literature on resilience in higher education, important gaps remain. Existing studies show considerable heterogeneity in instruments, populations, and outcomes, limiting comparability and the extraction of practical implications for universities. Therefore, the main objective of this systematic review is to synthesize recent evidence (2019-2024) on resilience levels in higher education students, examining their relationship with mental health, academic outcomes, and contextual factors, to identify common patterns, methodological limitations, and opportunities for intervention in higher education.

Methods

Protocol and Registration

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).

Data Sources and Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between January 2019 and November 2024. The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to resilience and university students, applying Boolean operators (AND/OR) and truncators (*). Filters included language (English/Spanish), document type (article), and open access. The complete search strings for each database are presented in Supplementary Table 1.

The exact search strings used were as follows:

1. PubMed: ("university students"[Title/Abstract] OR "college students"[Title/Abstract] OR undergraduates[Title/Abstract] OR universitarians[Title/Abstract]) AND ("resilience"[Title/Abstract] OR "psychological resilience"[Title/Abstract] OR "resilient capacity"[Title/Abstract] OR resilien*[Title/Abstract]) AND ("cross-sectional"[Title/Abstract] OR "descriptive study"[Title/Abstract])). Filters: 2019/01/01–2024/11/08; Humans; English/Spanish; Free full text; Article

2. Web of Science (Core Collection): TS=("university students" OR "college students" OR undergraduates OR universitarians) AND TS=("resilience" OR "psychological resilience" OR "resilient capacity" OR resilien*) AND TS=("cross-sectional" OR "descriptive study"). Refined by: Open Access; Languages: English/Spanish; Document Types: Article; Timespan: 2019–2024

3. Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY("university students" OR "college students" OR undergraduates OR universitarians) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("resilience" OR "psychological resilience" OR "resilient capacity" OR resilien*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("cross-sectional" OR "descriptive study") AND (PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2025) AND (LIMIT-TO(LANGUAGE, "English") OR LIMIT-TO(LANGUAGE, "Spanish")) AND (LIMIT-TO(OPENACCESS, "all")) AND (LIMIT-TO(DOCTYPE, "ar"))

The search results were exported to Mendeley for organization and deduplication, and subsequently imported into Rayyan QCRI (https://rayyan.qcri.org/) to facilitate independent screening by reviewers.

Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility of the studies was reviewed independently by two researchers (L.G.-P and R.P.-R). Using the PICOS framework, which considers participants, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design, the following inclusion criteria were established:

• Population (P): Higher education/university students;

• Intervention/condition (I): Psychological resilience;

• Comparison (C): Not applicable (observational studies);

• Outcomes (O): Mental health indicators (stress, anxiety, depression, well-being), academic outcomes (e.g., engagement, procrastination), and related factors (e.g., sleep, social support, mobile phone use);

• Study design (S): Cross-sectional studies (descriptive and analytical).

Cross-sectional designs were prioritized because they allow estimation of prevalence and associations across large and diverse samples, consistent with the descriptive and associative objectives of this review. Only open-access articles were included, in line with open science principles to ensure transparency, replicability, and accessibility. We acknowledge that this restriction may introduce availability bias.

Studies were excluded if they met any of the following conditions:

• Study design: Non-cross-sectional studies, including longitudinal, experimental, case-control, or qualitative designs;

• Type of publication: Reviews, meta-analyses, theoretical papers, conference abstracts, or non-peer-reviewed sources;

• Population: Samples not composed of higher education/university students;

• Focus: Studies addressing unrelated psychological constructs or outcomes not directly linked to resilience;

• Reporting: Articles with incomplete, insufficient, or unclear data on resilience measurement or outcomes;

• Accessibility: Studies not available in full text or not published in open-access format.

Study Selection Process

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved records. Full texts were then assessed for eligibility according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and unresolved cases were arbitrated by a third reviewer. The references of the studies included were also screened for additional relevant articles. The process is summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).

Risk of Bias Assessment

The Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) tool (Downes et al., 2016) was applied to assess methodological quality across 20 items. Two reviewers independently assessed each study, and inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.93), indicating excellent agreement. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and, if needed, a third reviewer. Following best practice, we did not generate a cumulative score but categorized each study qualitatively as low, moderate, or high risk of bias.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The main findings, derived from cross-sectional studies focusing on resilience and related factors, were systematically organized by key criteria: author(s) and year of publication, country, participant demographics (age, degree, sample size, and gender), and study characteristics (objective, evaluated variables, instruments used, and main resilience-related results). To ensure accuracy and reliability, data extraction was independently reviewed by two researchers (author1 and author2), reducing errors and enhancing consistency.

Search and Study Selection Process

An exhaustive database search retrieved 1,273 records: Web of Science (n = 503), PubMed (n = 228), and Scopus (n = 542). After applying inclusion criteria (last five years, Spanish/English, open access), automation tools marked 648 records as ineligible, and 241 duplicates were removed, leaving 384 records for initial screening. During screening, 277 records were excluded for incorrect publication type (n = 252) or questionnaire validations (n = 25), reducing the count to 107 reports. Further assessment excluded 74 reports due to incorrect study design (n = 4), inadequate population (n = 8), and irrelevant outcomes (n = 62). Ultimately, 33 studies met inclusion criteria for the final analysis (see Figure 1).

Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the studies are described in Table 1, with the included studies, published between 2020 and 2024, revealing a growing academic focus on resilience among university students.

The distribution includes 1 study in 2020, 7 studies each in 2021 and 2022, 4 studies in 2023, and a significant increase to 14 studies in 2024. This sharp rise in 2024 underscores heightened recognition of the importance of resilience and a strong academic commitment to understanding its implications (Figure 2).

The reviewed studies reflect a global interest in resilience research, with China contributing the highest number (n = 8), followed by Germany (n = 3), and additional contributions from Spain, Ethiopia, and Brazil. This diversity highlights the widespread academic focus on resilience across different cultural and geographical contexts (see Figure 3). Other contributing countries included Turkey, India, Iraq, Romania, UAE, Israel, Oman, Palestine, South Africa, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Slovenia, and Italy. This broad geographic representation underscores resilience as a topic of universal academic and cultural relevance.

The 33 studies analyzed included 37,547 participants aged 17 to 41, with women and men comprising 61.96% and 37.80%, respectively, and 0.11% identifying as non-binary or gender fluid. Health-related degrees were the most studied, particularly nursing, medicine, and health sciences, highlighting a predominant focus on this field. Other fields, such as psychology, technology, education, and engineering, were also represented. Sample sizes ranged from 102 to 8,457, reflecting the broad diversity and scope of the analysis.

Results

Prevalence of Resilience Levels

Among the 33 studies analyzed, moderate resilience levels were the most common, observed in 70.6% of cases. Low resilience was reported in 14.7%, high resilience in 8.8%, and 5.9% of studies identified intermediate levels categorized as low-moderate resilience (see Table 2).

Most Frequent Assessment Outcomes

The reviewed studies consistently positioned resilience as a central variable, often examined alongside additional factors to provide a multidimensional perspective. Stress emerged as the most commonly assessed variable, featured in 27% of studies, followed by depression (21%) and anxiety (18%). Other frequently studied factors included self-efficacy (12%), coping strategies (15%), burnout, social support, and well-being, while individual studies explored academic engagement, procrastination, sleep quality, loneliness, physical activity, and mobile phone addiction. This diversity highlights the broad scope of resilience research and its connection to psychological, behavioral, and academic outcomes.

Most Frequently Used Instruments

Various instruments were used alongside resilience to assess related variables, highlighting its multidimensional nature. Stress was frequently evaluated using tools like the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Self-efficacy was measured in some studies using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (G-SES). Additional assessments included the Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale (MSPSS) for social support, the Maslach Burnout Inventory for burnout, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) for sleep quality. Loneliness and mobile phone addiction were also explored using specialized scales. This diverse range of tools underscores the complexity of resilience and its links to various psychological and behavioral factors.

Key Findings

Most studies identified moderate resilience as the most common level, with fewer participants exhibiting high or low resilience. Resilience consistently emerged as a protective factor across academic, personal, and health contexts, showing strong correlations with reduced stress, depression, and anxiety (typically |r| ≈ 0.30–0.55). Stronger effects were reported for procrastination (r = –0.69) and coping strategies (r = 0.74). Regression models confirmed resilience as a significant predictor of well-being, academic engagement, and sleep quality (β range = 0.12–0.35). Moreover, odds ratios indicated that each additional point of resilience reduced the likelihood of depression and suicidal ideation (e.g., OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88–0.94).

In academic settings, resilience was associated with higher self-efficacy and reduced procrastination, as well as the mitigation of problematic behaviors such as mobile phone addiction and loneliness, underscoring its broad protective benefits (see Table 2).

Risk of Bias Assessment

The 33 included studies were evaluated using the AXIS tool. Overall, methodological quality was rated as moderate. Most studies clearly reported their objectives, applied appropriate study designs, used validated instruments, and described data analysis adequately. Ethical approval was reported in all cases.

However, several methodological weaknesses were consistently observed. Only 12% of the studies provided a justification for sample size, and only 3% demonstrated representativeness of the sampling frame. Participant selection processes were insufficiently described in 12% of studies. None of the studies analyzed non-responders, which raises concerns about potential non-response bias. In addition, only 18% adequately addressed confounding factors. These limitations restrict the external validity of the findings and highlight the need for stronger methodological designs in future research. The detailed item-by-item evaluation of each study is presented in Supplementary Table 2.

Discussion

This systematic review of 33 cross-sectional studies with 49,868 participants reaffirms the central role of resilience as a protective factor in academic, personal, and health contexts. Conducted between 2019 and 2024, the studies reveal that resilience mitigates psychological distress, promotes well-being, and fosters adaptive behaviors, particularly during challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Moderate resilience was the most prevalent category (70.6%), followed by low (14.7%) and high resilience (8.8%). While these findings confirm the importance of resilience, critical interpretation is required to better understand the strength, variability, and implications of these associations. Studies such as the ones conducted by Fisher et al. (2023) and Chua et al. (2023) reported lower resilience levels among university students, attributed to limited life experience, emotional maturity, and practical resources (Arnett, 2015). This highlights the potential for improvement through targeted interventions to address these barriers and enhance resilience capacity.

Discrepancies across studies may be partly explained by differences in measurement tools. For example, the CD-RISC captures resilience as a trait-like construct, whereas the BRS emphasizes the capacity to “bounce back” from stress. Such differences affect prevalence estimates and correlations with mental health outcomes (Chua et al., 2023; Brewer et al., 2019). This highlights the importance of selecting instruments aligned with the conceptual framework of resilience being studied.

Studies consistently demonstrate a strong negative correlation between resilience and mental health challenges, including stress, depression, and anxiety. Higher resilience levels are associated with lower perceived stress (Drach-Zahavy et al., 2022; Ghogare et al., 2022; Hassan et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022; Luibl et al., 2021; Vajpeyi Misra et al., 2022; Popa-Velea et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2023), reduced depressive symptoms (Aryuwat et al., 2024; Ghogare et al., 2022; Vajpeyi Misra et al., 2022; Popa-Velea et al., 2021; Rometsch et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2023), and lower anxiety (Ghogare et al., 2022; Hassan et al., 2022; Vajpeyi Misra et al., 2022; Popa-Velea et al., 2021; Rometsch et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2023). Resilient individuals also report greater psychological satisfaction and well-being, reinforcing the role of resilience as a critical protective factor (Alkaissi et al., 2023; Popa-Velea et al., 2021).

Resilience also serves as a buffer against burnout, characterized as physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion caused by prolonged stress. Studies have shown that resilience reduces emotional exhaustion, enhances emotional regulation, and prevents burnout syndrome in academic settings (de la Fuente et al., 2021; Feyisa et al., 2022; Öztürk & Kundakçi, 2021). Students with higher intrinsic motivation often exhibit greater resilience, enabling them to overcome academic pressures and reduce vulnerability to burnout (Mostafa & Lim, 2020). Moreover, resilience positively impacts sleep quality—a critical factor for mental and physical health. A meta-analysis of 63 studies demonstrated a strong link between resilience and healthier sleep patterns, suggesting that resilience reduces intrusive thoughts and worries that disrupt rest (Palagini et al., 2022). Students with higher resilience levels are more likely to maintain regular sleep schedules, reducing risks of insomnia and fatigue, which enhances overall well-being (Lo-Martire et al., 2024). During the COVID-19 pandemic, resilience emerged as a key predictor of sustained academic engagement, even in the face of significant educational disruptions (Ojo et al., 2021).

Resilience levels vary by demographic and contextual factors. Male students often report higher resilience than females, possibly due to cultural norms emphasizing independence and problem-solving (Luibl et al., 2021; Rayani et al., 2024; de Andrade et al., 2024). Female students, who face compounded academic and social pressures, tend to report lower resilience (Gefen & Fish, 2019; Ahmed et al., 2022). First-year students exhibit lower resilience, reflecting transitional challenges (Alkaissi et al., 2023; Feyisa et al., 2022). Socioeconomic and geographical factors also play a role, with urban students and those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds reporting greater resilience due to better access to resources and support (Qiu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2024). Social and environmental factors, including family resilience, teacher support, and positive parenting, are pivotal in building resilience (Dong et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022; Feyisa et al., 2022). Supportive environments enhance students’ emotional security and motivation, enabling them to manage adversity effectively. Tailored strategies that address unique group contexts can further strengthen resilience in students, promoting well-being and success.

The findings of this review underscore the critical need for comprehensive interventions aimed at bolstering resilience among university students, particularly those in vulnerable groups such as first-year students and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Resilience plays a pivotal role in enhancing students’ mental health by equipping them to manage stress, mitigate anxiety, and prevent depression. These outcomes are achieved through the development of adaptive coping strategies and emotional regulation, both essential for fostering well-being and academic success.

Effective interventions should incorporate mentoring programs, training in coping skills, and the establishment of supportive educational environments that strengthen social networks and ensure access to mental health resources. Additionally, resilience can be integrated into academic programs through practical workshops and activities promoting healthy sleep habits, regular physical activity, and a positive mindset. Tailoring these initiatives to address demographic and contextual differences will further enhance their effectiveness, enabling students to navigate challenges more effectively. By implementing these strategies, educational institutions can cultivate resilience, leading to improved mental health, holistic well-being, and sustainable academic success for university students, irrespective of their background or circumstances.

Practical applications may include short workshops (4-6 sessions) focused on coping strategies and mindfulness practices, peer mentoring systems that support first-year students during their transition, and curriculum-based activities such as reflective journals or service-learning projects. Institutions can also promote digital well-being by implementing campaigns focused on healthy mobile phone use and providing dedicated spaces for physical activity and relaxation on campus.

Strengths and Limitations

This review presents several strengths that enhance the reliability and relevance of its findings. It incorporates a broad range of cross-sectional studies across diverse university student populations, providing a comprehensive view of the role of resilience in academic and psychological outcomes. The focus on recent studies ensures the findings are current and reflect contemporary challenges, particularly during critical periods like the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of validated instruments adds methodological rigor, while prioritizing open-access publications ensures transparency and accessibility for further research.

Consistent findings—particularly the strong links between resilience, mental health, coping strategies, and academic engagement—affirm resilience as a robust protective factor. Moreover, the identification of demographic and contextual variations offers actionable insights for designing tailored interventions.

Nevertheless, several limitations should be acknowledged. The cross-sectional design of the included studies restricts causal inferences and prevents assessment of long-term effects. The reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases, including social desirability. Sample heterogeneity and the absence of standardized comparisons may further limit generalizability. Cultural and geographical concentration of studies, particularly in Asia, restricts extrapolation to underrepresented contexts. In addition, the inclusion of only open-access publications may have excluded relevant studies published in subscription-based journals.

The focus on university students means the findings cannot be generalized to other groups like younger students or older adults. External factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may also have influenced the results. Additionally, the lack of longitudinal studies hinders understanding of how resilience develops over time.

These limitations highlight the need for future research to address gaps and deepen understanding of resilience in educational contexts.

References

Notes

^* Research article

Funding This research is part of the Erasmus+ RESUPERES project (2021-1-ES01-KA220-HED-000031173), funded by the European Union. M.C.-G is the principal investigator of the project, while L.G.-P and R.P.-R are members of the research team. Additionally, this study was supported by the Ministerio de Universidades de España (Spanish Ministry of Universities) through the predoctoral grant Formación de Profesorado Universitario awarded to author 1 (FPU20/01373)

Author notes

a Correspondence autor. E-mail: rpadial@ugr.es

Additional information

How to cite: García-Pérez, L., Cepero-González, M., & Padial-Ruz, R. (2025). Resilience as a key to mental well-being in higher education: A systematic review of evidence and strategies. Universitas Psychologica,24, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy24.rkmw

Descargar