Self-reported depressive experiences are common among university students. However, most studies assessing depression in university students are cross-sectional, limiting our understanding of when in the academic year risk for depression is greatest and when interventions may be most needed. We examined within-person change in depressive symptoms from September to April. Study 1 (N = 198; 57% female; 72% white; Mage = 18.4): Depressive symptoms rose from September, peaked in December, and fell across the second semester. The rise in depressive symptoms was associated with higher perceived stress in December. Study 2 (N = 267; 78.7% female; 67.87% white; Mage = 21.25): Depressive symptoms peaked in December and covaried within persons with perceived stress and academic demands. The results have implications for understanding when and for whom there is increased risk for depressive experiences among university students.

No abstract

Research has shown that university students are at increased risk of developing depression and related symptoms. The goal of the present study was to examine whether academic experiences relate to depressive symptoms in emerging adults, over and above a set of established depression risk factors. Participants (N ¼ 903), ages 18-25 years, completed a series of questionnaires about risk factors for depression, academic experiences, and depressive symptoms. Results of a hierarchical multiple regression model showed that features of the academic experience were associated with depressive symptoms, over and above the effects of established risk factors. In particular, perceived academic stress, disengagement from studies, and loneliness at university were significant predictors of depressive symptoms. This research highlights the role of subjective academic experiences as potential risk factors for depressive symptoms in university students.

Objectives and Design: The goal of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to determine whether a computerized cognitive-behavioral therapy (cCBT) program for depression and anxiety could reduce symptoms in outpatients on a waitlist for face-to-face CBT for a variety of mental health complaints. Methods: Sixty-seven outpatients referred for CBT for disparate problems (eg, anxiety, depression, obsessions or compulsions) were randomized to 1 of 2 conditions: (1) the cCBT program “Good Days Ahead,” which included weekly guidance and support, or (2) a control condition where patients were referred to a freely available online CBT workbook. Measures of psychological distress were administered at the start of study and at the end of the waiting period, when participants were formally diagnosed and assessed for face-to-face therapy. Results: For the most part, mixed-design analyses of variances revealed no statistically significant changes in symptom measures over time. Nonsignificant interactions and modest effect sizes between groups across time suggest that the cCBT group did not do better than the control group. The majority of cCBT participants reported that the program was “very” or “extremely useful,” while only a portion of the control group felt the same about the workbook. There were notable differences in the completion rates of the 2 groups in favor of the cCBT program. Conclusions: Offering a general cCBT program to waiting list patients may not confer an advantage over referring them to an online workbook, at least in terms of symptom reduction. Results could be partly explained by difficulties translating knowledge into practice, especially if participants’ main problem was not directly addressed by the intervention.