1. Guassi Moreira JF, Telzer EH. Changes in family cohesion and links to depression during the college transition. J Adolesc. 2015; 43: 72-82.

2. Nerdrum P, Rustøen T, Rønnestad MH. Student Psychological Distress: A psychometric study of 1750 Norwegian 1st-year undergraduate students. Scand J Educ Res. 2006; 50: 95-109.

3. Walsh JM, Feeney C, Hussey J, Donnellan C. Sources of stress and psychological morbidity among undergraduate physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy. 2010; 96: 206-212.

4. Boujut E, Koleck M, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, Bourgeois ML. Mental health among students: A study among a cohort of freshmen. In Elsevier; 2009; 662-668.

5. Angelone AM, Mattei A, Sbarbati M, Di Orio F. Prevalence and correlates for self-reported sleep problems among nursing students. J Prev Med Hyg. 2011; 52: 201-208.

6. Loayza H MP, Ponte TS, Carvalho CG, Pedrotti MR, Nunes PV, Souza CM, et al. Association between mental health screening by self-report questionnaire and insomnia in medical students. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2001; 59: 180-185.

7. McKinzie C, Altamura V, Burgoon E, Bishop C. Exploring the effect of stress on mood, self-esteem, and daily habits with psychology graduate students. Psychol Rep. 2006; 99: 439-448.

8. Taylor DJ, Gardner CE, Bramoweth AD, Williams JM, Roane BM, Grieser EA, et al. Insomnia and mental health in college students. Behav Sleep Med. 2011; 9: 107-116.

9. Taylor DJ, Bramoweth AD, Grieser EA, Tatum JI, Roane BM. Epidemiology of insomnia in college students: relationship with mental health, quality of life, and substance use difficulties. Behav Ther. 2013; 44: 339-348.

10. Lee YC, Chien KL, Chen HH. Lifestyle risk factors associated with fatigue in graduate students. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007; 106: 565-572.

11. Maniecka-Bry?a I, Bry?a M, Weinkauf A, Dierks ML.The international comparative study of the health status of medical university students in Lodz and Hanover. Przegl Lek. 2005; 3: 63-68.

12. Migeot V, Ingrand I, Defossez G, Salardaine F, Lahorgue MF, Poupin C, et al. Health behaviours of students at the University Institute of Technology in Poitiers. Sante Publique. 2006; 18: 195-205.

13. Vandentorren S, Verret C, Vignonde M, Maurice-Tison S. Determining students health information needs at the Service of Inter-university Preventative Medicine in Bordeaux. Santé Publique. 2005; 17: 47-56.

14. Backovi? DV, Zivojinovi? JI, Maksimovi? J, Maksimovi? M. Gender differences in academic stress and burnout among medical students in final years of education. Psychiatr Danub. 2012; 24: 175-181.

15. Dyrbye LN, Harper W, Durning SJ, Moutier C, Thomas MR, Massie FS Jr, et al. Patterns of distress in US medical students. Med Teach. 2011; 33: 834-839.

16. Humphris G, Blinkhorn A, Freeman R, Gorter R, Hoad-Reddick G, Murtomaa H, et al. Psychological stress in undergraduate dental students: baseline results from seven European dental schools. Eur J Dent Educ. 2002; 6: 22-29.

17. Spitz É, Costantini M-L, Baumann M. Psychological distress and coping strategies of first year university students. Rev Francoph Stress Trauma. 2007; 7: 217-225. 

18. Strenna L, Chahraoui K, Vinay A. Psychological well-being of first year business school students: The links between stress generated from choosing a professional orientation, self-esteem and coping. Orientat Sc Prof. 2009; 38:183-204.

19. Tam Phun E, Dos Santos CB. Alcohol consumption and stress in second year nursing students. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2010; 18 Spec No: 496-503.

20. Eisenberg D, Golberstein E, Hunt JB. Mental health and academic success in college. BE J Econ Anal Policy. 2009; 9.

21. Ni C, Liu X, Hua Q, Lv A, Wang B, Yan. Relationship between coping, self-esteem, individual factors and mental health among Chinese nursing students: a matched case-control study. Nurse Educ Today. 2010; 30: 338-343.

22. Yao Y-H, Liu L, Zhao X-D. Linking self-differentiation and mental health in lower-grade college students with different genders: Moderating roles of self-esteem. Chin Ment Health J. 2011; 25: 856-861.

23. Costarelli V, Patsai A. Academic examination stress increases disordered eating symptomatology in female university students. Eat Weight Disord EWD. 2012; 17: e164-169.

24. Hubbs A, Doyle EI, Bowden RG, Doyle RD. Relationships among self-esteem, stress, and physical activity in college students. Psychol Rep. 2012; 110: 469-474.

25. Torres JB, Solberg VS. Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, and family support in Latino college student persistence and health. J Vocat Behav. 2001; 59: 53-63.

26. Han K. Self efficacy, health promoting behaviors, and symptoms of stress among university students. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2005; 35: 585-592.

27. Roddenberry A, Renk K. Locus of control and self-efficacy: potential mediators of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2010; 41: 353-370.

28. Rode JC, Arthaud-Day ML, Mooney CH, Near JP, Baldwin TT, Bommer WH, et al. Life satisfaction and student performance. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005; 4: 421-433.

29. Vallieres EF, Vallerand RJ. French-Canadian translation and validation of Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. Int J Psychol. 1990; 25: 305-316.

30. Chabrol H, Carlin E, Michaud C, Rey A, Cassan D, Juillot M, et al. A study of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in a sample of high-school students. Neuropsychiatr Enfance Adolesc. 2004; 52: 533-536.

31. Scholz U, Doña BG, Sud S, Schwarzer R. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2002; 18: 242.

32. Schwarzer R. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). 2013.

33. Schwarzer R. Everything you wanted to know about the General Self-Efficacy Scale but were afraid to ask. 2011.

34. Blais MR, Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Brière NM. The satisfaction scale: Canadian-French validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Can J Behav Sci Can Sci Comport. 1989; 21: 210-223.

35. Carless D, Douglas K, Fox K, McKenna J. An alternative view of psychological well-being in cardiac rehabilitation: Considering temperament and character. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006; 5: 237-243.

36. Pavot WG, Diener E. Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychol Assess. 1993; 5: 164-72.

37. Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med. 1979; 9: 139-145.

38. Bolognini M, Bettschart W, Zehnder-Gubler M, Rossier L. The validity of the French version of the GHQ-28 and PSYDIS in a community sample of 20 year olds in Switzerland. Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. 1989; 238: 161-168.

39. GL assessment. General Health Questionnaire FAQs. 2014.

40. Guelfi JD. Standardized clinical assessment in psychiatry]. Lavaur, France: Éd. médicales Pierre Fabre; 1993; 411.

41. Lassarre D, Paty B. Academic stress and success: Economic, pedagogical and psychological conditions of a successful academic year. Rev IRES N° 43. 2003.

Summary: The primary objective is to analyze the level of mental health within the university student population; the secondary objective is to gain an understanding of certain important factors which may be used to improve mental health

Method: In order to achieve these objectives, four internet questionnaires were used; SWLS: Life Scale satisfaction; RSE: Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale; GSE: General Self-Efficacy Scale; GHQ-28: General Health Questionnaire.

Results: Of the 431 university students surveyed, 73.09% had symptoms of psychological distress, 58.24% had a low Self-Esteem and 52.20% had a low SelfEfficacy. There is a significant correlation between the four variables of the study. Women have a higher level of Psychological Distress and a lower level of Self-Efficacy than men. The Self-Esteem and the Satisfaction with Life predict the Self-Efficacy and the General Health of the university students.

Conclusion: These results shed light on the importance of taking Satisfaction with Life, Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy into consideration when dealing with University student’s mental health, and the prevention of mental illnesses.

Dalia S, Nathalie C, Lucia R (2016) On what Resources can the Students Rely on: Satisfaction with Life, Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy. Ann Psychiatry Ment Health 4(2): 1062.

•    Mental health
•    Students
•    Self-efficacy
•    Satisfaction with Life
•    Self-esteem

SWLS: Satisfaction with Life Scale; RSE: Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale; GSE: General Self-Efficacy Scale; GHQ-28: General Health Questionnaire

University students have more problems with psychological issues (such as depression, anxiety, stress, etc.) than any other population [1-3]. This is generated by the new responsibilities of young adults and the difficulties in adapting to university [4]. These psychological issues, which have been studied by various investigations, manifest in different ways, such as trouble sleeping [5-9], and fatigue problems [9-13]. Also, these can lead to more serious and worrying problems such as higher levels of psychological distress [2,14-18]. Furthermore, the prevalence of academic overload represents the highest source of stress among nursing students [19]. Additionally, it has been shown that depression, anxiety and eating disorders are associated with lower academic success and a higher probability of dropping out [20].

However, some studies show that there is a correlation between positive psychological variables, like Self-Esteem [18,21- 24] and Self-Efficacy [25-27], and mental health in University students. Additionally, positive variables like Satisfaction with Life have a significant and a positive correlation with students’ academic performance [28], although, this research is still scarce.

This vicious circle of influences especially between mental health and academic performance increases the importance of focusing on this demographic. The objective of this study is to explore the positive resources that can help students to cope.

Data was collected during an exploratory survey conducted by the research laboratory in clinical psychology of the Paris West University in Nanterre La Défense (EA Clipsyd 4430) on the mental health of university students.

Data has been collected with four online questionnaires; the duration of the test was about 10 minutes. Subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire including socio-demographic questions of (age, sex, level of study, etc). All the participants were clearly informed about the study. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. 630 University students were surveyed between February and May 2014 in Ile de France, all of whom agreed to participate in the research.

The recruitment was performed mainly on the site of Paris West University, which advertised the research, helping to spread it in the student newsletter and on social networks within university. Posters were also distributed on campus, although it is noted that the dissemination in the newsletter was the most effective. The research follows the instructions of the Ethics Group UFR EDS and students could apply for a copy of the research results.

Instruments

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale “RSE”: developed by Morris Rosenberg, translated and validated in French by Vallieres and his team. The results support the validity and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.70) of this scale in French. It consists of 10 items which the subject responds to on a Likert scale from “1” Strongly disagree, to “4” Strongly agree [29]. A score lower than 30 shows low self-esteem and a score greater than or equal to 30 is for a good self-esteem [30].

General Self-Efficacy Scale “GSE”: developed by Matthias Jerusalem and Rolf Schwarze, translated and validated in French by Dumont and his team. The psychometric data is satisfactory and the average, internal consistency is high and there is a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 [31]. It is composed of ten items, which are answered on a Likert scale from “1” not at all true, to “4” totally true. It aims to estimate the feeling of self-efficacy [32]. There is no threshold given by Schwarzer, but we can use the median as the threshold of our sample [33], the average is 28.

Satisfaction With Life Scale “SWLS”: developed by Ed Diener, Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen and Sharon Griffin, translated and validated in French by Blais and his team. The psychometric characteristics are acceptable and also similar to the English versions, the scale has excellent internal consistency, acceptable test-retest and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 [34]. It comprises 5 items, which are answered on a Likert scale of 7 points. It aims to estimate the satisfaction with life [34]. The scores are categorized as follows: Extremely satisfied [31-35], Satisfied [26-30], Slightly satisfied [21-25], Neutral [20], Slightly dissatisfied [15-19], Dissatisfied [10-14] and [5 – 9] Extremely dissatisfied [35,36].

General Health Questionnaire “GHQ-28”: a tool described for the first time by Goldberg in 1972 [37], it has been translated and validated in French by Bolognini and his team in 1989,GHQ had the best correlation with clinical assessment, with a specificity of 91.1 and a sensitivity of 49.1 [38]. It is comprised of 28 items [37], which are answered on a Likert scale of 4 points. It aims to estimate psychological distress [38]. A score greater than or equal to 5 indicates psychological distress [39,40].

Data analyses

All statistical analyses were performed with the STATISTICA 10 software. Statistical analyses were carried out according to the following procedures; descriptive analyses using Basic statistics test and t-test to evaluate differences based on sex. The correlations between the scores of the variables were tested with the Bravais Pearson correlations test. Moreover, path analysis was conducted by repeating multiple regression analysis (stepwise method), firstly to examine self-efficacy as dependent variable, and secondly to examine psychological distress as dependent variable. A value of p<.05 was considered statistically significant for t-test and regression analyses.

Results

Descriptive and exploratory analyses: The sample consists of 431 students from the Paris region (93.74% coming from Paris West University), a majority of whom were women (75.17%). The average age was 19.9 years old (SD: 1.77). The majority of students (72.62%) live with their parents and 94.43% do not have children. The sample was comprised of students at varying levels of progress through their bachelor’s degree (49.42% were first year students, 25.29% second year students and 25.29% third year students) and from differing fields of study. The majority of who hadn’t repeated a grade (78.19%).

Prevalence and frequencies for each of the recorded variables (Self-Esteem, General Self-Efficacy, Satisfaction with Life, and General Health) are reported in Table 1. On the one hand, low self-esteem is observed in 58.24% of the students, on the other hand, scores of life satisfaction indicate that 24.59% of students were “Slightly satisfied”, 10.44% were “Dissatisfied”, 2.87% were “Extremely dissatisfied”, and 30.16% were “Satisfied”. 52.20% of students have a total score indicating poor self-efficacy. Finally, 73.09% of students reported psychological distress according to their score on the GHQ-28. The results show that male students have a sense of self-efficacy significantly higher than that of women who have a higher level of psychological distress (Table 1).

Correlations Between the study variables: As one can see from Figure 1 the study variables (Self-Esteem, General Self-Efficacy, Satisfaction with Life, and General Health) were all significantly correlated.

Multiple Linear Regressions: First, a linear regression model was tested to explain the score of GSE (dependent variable) by the scores of RSE, SWLS and GHQ-28. This regression model explained 29.85% (R2 = 0.2985) of the GSE score variability. The significant descriptive variables in this model are RSE (b* = 0.434; p = 0.000), and SWLS (b* = 0.132; p = 0.005), (Table 2).

Secondly, a linear regression model was tested to explain the score of GHQ-28 (dependent variable) by the scores of RSE, SWLS and GSE. This regression model explained 17.97% (R2 = 0.1797) of the variability of the GHQ-28 score. The significant descriptive variables in this model are also SWLS (b* = -0.216; p = 0.00003) and RSE (b* = 0.215; p = 0.0001) (Table 2).

Discussion

Amongst the students (N = 431), it is found that University students have high levels of psychological distress (73.09%) and low level of self-esteem (58.24%). The problematic psychological state of this sample is slightly higher than that found in other similar samples within France [13,18,41].

There is a significant correlation between all the recorded variables: RSE, SWLS and GSE have significant negative correlation with GHQ-28.Additionally, RSE, SWLS and GSE have been significantly correlated with GHQ-28, however these correlate in a positive fashion (Figure 1).This result is consistent with those of previous studies which have shown a positive correlation between Self-Efficacy and better health [25].

In this study, it is remarkable that women are more at risk than men; women have a significantly higher level of GHQ-28 than men, however, they have a GSE level which is significantly less than men. These results are consistent with those from the literature review [2].

However, according to the previous study, the sense of self-efficacy is the most powerful predictor of stress symptoms among university students (26). In the regression analysis results, the two positive variables (self-esteem and life satisfaction) positively predicted self-efficacy (model 1), but negatively predicted psychological distress (model 2), (Table 2).

This research has a number of limitations, such as convenience sample, no control group, cross-sectional study and a majority of women. This study should be extended to other types of students (High schools, colleges, IUT, Vocational schools, etc.), and its notable results investigated further.

Table 1: Descriptive statistic for the study variables (N=431).

Table 2: Multiple regressions with model 1 (GSE score dependent variable) and model 2 (GHQ-28 scores dependent variable).

This survey indicates that the resources that the way to improve psychological health is to foster and maintain self-esteem, life satisfaction and self-efficacy.

The absence of a direct correlation between self-efficacy and psychological distress, will be the subject of future research in order to study the mediation and the moderation between these two variables.

This survey also highlights the strong importance of including positive variables (introduced in this study) in the prevention of mental health issues in student populations, and hopes to aid universities in the creation of mental health programs. There is need for further studies into this subject, to continue improving the mental health of university students.