https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3287-0153
Figures
Abstract
Higher education in biosciences is substantiallyinformed by hands-on field trips and practical laboratory skills-training. With the first Covid-19 national lock-down in England in March 2020, on-campus education at higher education institutions was swiftly moved to alternative provisions, including online only options, a mix of synchronous or asynchronous blended, or hybrid adaptions. Students enrolled on an undergraduate bioscience programme have been faced with unprecedented changes and interruptions to their education. This study aimed to evaluate bioscience students’ ability to adjust to a fast-evolving learning environment and to capture students’ journey building up resilience and graduate attributes. A total of 317 Bioscience undergraduate students in years 1–3 at the biology department at a northwest English university participated in this anonymous, cross-sectional, mixed-method study with open and closed questions evaluating their perception and feedback to remote and blended learning provisions during the Covid-19 pandemic and post pandemic learning capturing academic years 2019/20–2022/23. The Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent restriction of personal social interaction resulted in an significant decrease in the mental wellbeing of undergraduate bioscience students in this study, cumulating in poor or very poor self-rating of wellbeing in spring 2021; while at the same time students showed evidence of advanced adaption to the new learning and social environment by acquisition of additional technical, social and professional graduate-level skills. Post pandemic, bioscience students worry about the increased living costs and are strongly in favour of a mixture of face-to-face and blended learning approaches. Our results show that bioscience students can self-report poor mental health while developing resilience, indicating tailored support can aid in developing students’ resilience. Students have adjusted with ease to digital teaching provisions and now expect higher education institutions continue to offer both, face-to-face, and blended teaching, reducing the burden on students’ notably risen living costs.
Citation: Andrews K, Stoneley R, Eckl K (2025) Learn!Bio—A time-limited cross-sectional study on biosciences students’ pathway to resilience during and post the Covid-19 pandemic at a UK university from 2020–2023 and insights into future teaching approaches. PLoS One 20(9): e0300824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300824
Editor: Saima Aleem, Khyber Medical University, PAKISTAN
Received: April 19, 2024; Accepted: August 25, 2025; Published: September 25, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Andrews et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data are all within the paper and the Supporting Information files, with the exception of four additional pdf documents with survey questionnaires, which can be accessed and downloaded from Edge Hill University’s data depository at https://doi.org/10.25416/edgehill.25260337.v1. Survey questionnaires do not entail any data but show the exact structure and all questions all answering options of the surveys used in this study. All anonymised datasets employed in the analysis can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.25416/edgehill.30002962.v1. Anonymised datasets do not entail direct quotes made in response to free-text questions, which could identify students, staff or other members of this organisation.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
In March 2020 the Word-Health Organisation (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic [1]. In the UK, the government legislated the first national lockdown, which commenced March 26th, 2020, resulting in a public standstill and a closure of all face-to-face and on-campus teaching at English universities [2,3] with most practical courses, laboratory experiments and field excursions suspended or converted to online or blended provisions for the majority of academic years 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 [4], respectively, a detailed timeline of national and local lockdowns and restrictions for the United Kingdom is shown in Fig 1
In reference to this manuscript the term “pre-pandemic” captures any timepoint before the first national lockdown in March 2020, whereas post-pandemic refers to the period from January 2022 onwards (Fig 1 generated by KE based on information from reference [5]).
Benchmark statements for bioscience students’ education (2023) outlined by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) highlight the need for practical skills training in the laboratory, field, and computer/IT settings. During their studies, bioscience students can also expect to experience “authentic research” throughout their course while acquiring competencies in the lab, field, and computational practical and transferable skills essential for a post-graduate role [6]. A paper presented by Coward and Gray (2014) for the Royal Society for Biology had calculated an average bioscience student in the UK can expect 500 hours of practical training in their three years as an undergraduate student, while speciality training in the laboratory, field, or computational education might depend on the chosen specific subject [7].
The Covid-19 pandemic restricted students’ access to laboratories and research facilities, and most field trips and excursions had been cancelled. Higher education institution (HEI) providers sought alternative strategies to prepare students for a successful post-graduation career, including access to interactive online lab sessions, the introduction of lab or field virtual simulations, and lab/field activities to be conducted at home with any required material sent by post to all participating students [8–11].
With student accommodations closed and campus and social interactions significantly reduced [12,13], the Covid-19 pandemic has changed higher education teaching and learning world-wide, and has impacted students’ wellbeing and their pathway to personal and career-related resilience and skills development in a yet not fully understood extent [14,15].
This manuscript presents students’ feedback and voices from 317 participants surveyed from 2020−2023 in a cross-sectional mixed-methods study conducted at a North English university on bioscience students’ perception on their higher education during and post the Covid-19 pandemic and how the closure of laboratories and limitations to access campus facilities impacted their mental wellbeing and pathway to resilience development. Follow up surveys conducted in 2022 and 2023 post-pandemic compares students’ perception on the consequences of the pandemic on bioscience learning and career progression.
This study follows the AdvanceHE definition of mental health and wellbeing, summarised in reference [16] and the excellent definition of resilience as described by the American Psychological Association [17]. Students’ wellbeing, resilience to change and ability to grow in times of uncertainty (pathway to resilience) was evaluated against the Ten UK Measures of National Wellbeing [18].
Teaching, learning and pedagogy research at this department is informed by constructivism-informed didactic for science teaching, learning and research (Kersten Reich [19], John Dewey) and by Maria Montessori’s [20] concepts for adult learners, which is reflected in the study design.
We hypothesised (1) most bioscience students exhibit the ability to adjust to a fast-evolving learning environment and build up resilience. We also hypothesised (2) that students preferred to return to a pre-pandemic mode of teaching. Post-pandemic, students are notably supportive of a blended teaching concept but are not in favour of purely online learning.
Methods
Study design and study setting
This anonymous, cross-sectional, mixed-method cohort study followed a convergent parallel design with a focus on qualitative and descriptive data collection and analysis [21].
The study captured students’ feedback at four time points between November 2020 and May 2023 evaluating perception and acceptance of changes to (1) Learning during the pandemic and adjusting to a new challenging situation (2) wellbeing and resilience, and (3) consequences of the pandemic & students’ expectations from providers as reported by participants [22]. All participants have been in education during the Covid-19 pandemic, either at school or university level.
Our pathway to study development is shown in S1 Fig. In brief, upon closure of campus teaching and the move to remote and hybrid teaching preliminary, unstructured student feedback and comments from spring 2020 prompted an in-depth literature review and first structured student surveys throughout late spring and early summer 2020 (module level only). Extended survey questions were then established based on student feedback and internal review while taken into account questions on wellbeing and resilience from the UK Measures of National Well-being surveys [18], and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale principles [23]. Estimated completion time for surveys S1 and S2 had been estimated with 30–45 minutes (62 and 79 questions, respectively). The student gatekeeper requested follow-up surveys are kept to a maximum completion time of 20–25 minutes. Surveys S3 and S4 entail 34 and 38 questions, respectively. A range of new questions have been added which captured the changed circumstances of lived student experiences.
All students enrolled in an undergraduate bioscience degree (years 1–3) at Edge Hill University were eligible to participate in this study. Students were invited by email which entailed a direct link to the respective JISC online survey studies. Each questionnaire was accessible on the JISC online survey platform for four weeks, with one email reminder sent two weeks after the first invitation. Participation in each study was entirely voluntary and not linked to the participation in a previous or follow-up study. We completed four studies: Study-survey S1 (November 2020, mid-pandemic I, data collected from 23/11/2020 to 08/12/2020), study-survey S2 (April 2021, mid-pandemic II, data collected from 28/04/2021 to 04/05/2021), study-survey S3 (March 2022, follow-up I, data collection from 08/03/22 at 9am to 06/04/22), and study-survey S4 (May 2023, follow-up II, data collection from 03/04/2023 to 02/05/2023). All participants in this study were 18 years of age or older and fully able to consent.
Student cohort and participants
Cohort sizes and number of participants for each study are shown in Table 1. No personal identifiers were collected.
Quantitative and qualitative data, data interpretation
We conducted four surveys based on a convergent mixed-method approach with all surveys entailing quantitative and descriptive (single/multiple-choice questions) and extended qualitative questions (open answer questions) [24].
Upon completion of study, all raw data, each survey layout, and all questions were downloaded from the JISC online survey server and saved on a secure university cloud-based server. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected and analysed separately and combined for joint display of results [21]. Quantitative data from all four studies was manually analysed using Microsoft Excel while taking into consideration the grouping, as shown in Table 2. Each variable/question was analysed independently. Due to the small sample size per group and study and the overall descriptive nature of this study, data is presented in raw format,albeit in percentages, allowing easier comparison across all groups, cohorts, and surveys. Where appropriate, statistical analysis was performed with GraphPad Prism version 10 to show evidence of significance of results and conclusions
Quotes displayed in this manuscript are examples only and are not a full representation of all comments provided: Most free-text answer options allowed participants to expand their feedback on topics raised in previously answered quantitative questions, enabled data validation, and provided keywords for coding [25]. All free text answers were analysed individually and across all year with Excel for Microsoft 365 enterprise, version 2402: Numbers of submissions (total, per cohort) were recorded, and each submission was indexed for later identification and publication [26]. The free text responses were analysed utilising the concept of thematic analysis with open coding procedures [27]. Preliminary coding was completed on keywords which arose from the quantitative lead question followed by a detailed coding based on prompts provided by twelve emerging themes covering topics from mental and physical wellbeing, remote and on-campus teaching, staff support, coping with social anxiety and increased living costs post-pandemic (initiated and completed by KME, reviewed and corrected by RS and KA).
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for this study was confirmed by the Faculty of Arts and Science Research Ethics Committee (approval reference FREC/1920/034) with permission to survey undergraduate students granted by the students’ gatekeeper, the head of the biology department. We asked students about their place of living, their study programme, if they had care responsibilities (and in Study S1 also about number and age of children they cared for), which could lead to indirect identification of participants [28], if combined with other personal data. For this reason, datasets on gender, sex, age, and origin have not been collected, as per FREC guidance on staff-led studies with student data.
All JISC online surveys (S1-S4) in this study entailed a detailed introduction to the study rationale outlining any ethical dilemmas and how these would be addressed, and a downloadable participant information sheet. Participants were reminded that the survey was completely anonymous, and withdrawal was not possible once the survey had been submitted. On the next online survey page, students were then asked to consent to the JISC online survey by ticking the relevant answers: I consent to participate in this anonymous survey – or -I do not consent to participate in this survey. If consent was declined, access to the online survey was terminated.
Survey questionnaires
All survey questionnaires for studies 1–4 can be downloaded from Edge Hill University’s public data depository at https://doi.org/10.25416/edgehill.25260337.v1. Anonymised datasets for studies S1-S4 can be accessed through this public depository at https://doi.org/10.25416/edgehill.30002962.v1.
Results
1. Learning during the pandemic & adjusting to a new challenging situation
This study captured students overall learning experiences after several months of restricted blended learning (November 2020), and then again in March 2022 and April 2023 as detailed in Table 3. Students were also invited to provide free-text feedback on their overall learning experiences.
Academic year 2020–2021 (autumn semester/ study 1).
On September 22nd, 2020, the UK government announced a new work-from-home policy and introduced a second national lockdown on November 5th, 2020, followed by student-specific pre-Christmas travel window, enabling students to return to family and friends for the festivities. Covid-19 and frequent regulatory and legal updates resulted in short-notice timetable changes to students returning to academic year 2020–2021 [29–31].
Consequently, students in this study were taught in a blended approach from the start of the 2020/21 academic year with students attending on campus once a week for face-to-face sessions and practical activities, while being taught remotely all other days/sessions. Sessions on campus had been streamed live to enable an all-inclusive learning environment for those unable to attend on campus (shielding, travel restrictions).
A first-year biology student suggested this summary on their overall learning experience at the biology department, captured in Study S1 (November 2020):
“As someone who has not been on campus due to Covid-19, it has been difficult to keep track of everything and maintain a routine. However, the tutors have been excellent and have worked very hard to ensure things are running smoothly” (L4/9452/5/S1).
This contrasts with a comment made by a third-year genetics student in the same study, highlighting the technical and IT hurdles many students encountered whilst learning remotely:
“Poor internet connection meant that my mum, brother, and I couldn’t work from home effectively at the same time” [….] (L6/9140/13/S1).
Students shared their preferred location for attending remote and blended learning sessions during the autumn 2020 semester, while teaching at most English higher education institutions was restricted to an online or blended teaching manner with very limited access to on-campus facilities and laboratories. At this time bioscience students at our department studied in a remote fashion on 4 out of 5 days and attended on campus on one day per week with different year groups attending on different days to limit the spread of the Sars-Cov2 virus. Table 4 displays the preferred workplaces for students attending remote teaching in November 2020.
Students provided critical feedback on recorded online learning content intended for independent asynchronous study, predominantly made available prior to a scheduled class (Table 5). Recorded content was made available on the LMS (Learning Management System, Blackboard™) enabled access to all students with internet/IT access.
Participants provided 31 free-text responses (15, 11, and 5 responses at L4, L5, and L6, respectively) detailing their views on recorded content in Study S1 (November 2020): Participants preferred recordings which provided closed captures, and showed a clear structure (table of content, slide-by-slide structure). Participants voiced a preference for recordings and PowerPoint slides made available separately, enabling students to read along and make annotations while listening to the recordings.
With only limited on-campus sessions available for most of academic years 2019/20 and 2020/21 many students had reported a lack of structure and the wish for additional guidance for their remote learning routines, represented in a statement by a year 1 plant science student captured in Study S1 (November 2020):
“[….] Clear, concise [work] instructions for everything” (L4/3902/62/S1).
A fellow first year student, studying towards a bachelor’s degree in biomedical science, summarised their feelings about new and unknown staff and the challenges of all-remote modules in a statement captured in November 2020:
“I feel that having set modules which are taught exclusively online is negatively affecting my studies, I find it harder to understand and harder to ask for help having never met those [who] are teaching me, maybe at least a few sessions in each module could be taught face to face to assist [my] learning” (L4/6421/62).
In November 2020 we asked students about their newly adopted learning, planning, and assessment preparation strategies as a consequence of the pandemic and the need to work from home (multiple-answer question, Table 6).
Survey participants voiced their opinion on how the department could assist students in their eLearning and might offer coping strategies in 38 free text responses (L4: 14, L5: 16, L6: 8) with 42.1% (16/38) responders expressing a wish for more non-modular and fun activities offered online, 34.2% (13/38) against, and 26.3% (10/38) outlining other/personal statements and feedback; for example a year 1 genetics student expressing their wish for more extra-modular activities:
“Both during lectures and within separate bioscience group chats we only talk about academic topics and do not know each other well (especially those from other teaching groups). I find most of my social interaction/people I know best through societies, so maybe having optional fun sessions could help students interact with each other more” (L4/0711/57/S1).
A year 2 biology student living in private accommodation in the nearby town of Ormskirk expressed a different opinion:
“I live alone and the only time I talk to anyone since I’ve come back to Ormskirk is for a few minutes before I go into the [X] lecture on Thursday. I spend 24 hours of most days in a 4m x 4m room alone. I don’t really think extra sessions would make much of a difference for me personally” (L5/0378/57/S1).
For any on-campus teaching in semester 1 in academic year 2020/21, students were allocated into small groups (“bubbles”) allowing the required two meter distanced spacing during classroom teaching. Each student received their own set of equipment for any lab experiment. In the November 2020 survey (Study S1) students had been asked if they felt safe with the offered on-campus teaching arrangements; 88.5% of all L4 students (28 participants providing 28 responses) fully/to some extent, agreed that it was safe to be in a classroom, as well as 85.7% of all L5 students (26/26) and 62.7/% of L6 students (16/16).
Students acknowledged the extra workload that technical staff were experiencing as 92.3%, 85.8%, and 68.8% students L4-L6 fully or to some extent agreed that “technical staff do an amazing job preparing each session”. Students in levels L4-L6 agreed fully or to some extent with 96.2%, 96.4%, and 75%, respectively that “all staff do they best they can, given the circumstances”.
Academic year 2020–2021 (spring semester/ study 2).
Students and staff worked from home during the third [complete] national lockdown from January 6th to March 7th, 2021, which also included the semester 1 exam period. Exams were conducted online as time-limited assessments (TLAs). Staff and year 2 students returned to campus for a (laboratory/fieldwork) research week on March 8th, 2021, while all other students continued to work from home until March 15th, 2021, when teaching resumed in a blended fashion as described above.
Study S2 was conducted in April 2021, a few weeks after students returned from the third national lockdown (January 6th to March 7th) to blended but still restricted on-campus learning modalities. Table 7 depicts students’ viewpoints on the impact of the 3rd national lockdown, and the consequential remote-only teaching on their learning.
In April 2021 this study enquired about changes to students’ accommodation provisions as a direct consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, including campus closures, national lockdowns, or changes in their finances or personal circumstances. Table 8 outlines changes in accommodation(s) for bioscience students at Edge Hill University in academic year 2020–2021.
The national and local pandemic policies and regulations in academic years 2019/20 and 2020/21 imposed restrictions on lab-based and field studies. Working at home and attending live online, blended, and recorded sessions from home was an entirely new experience for most of our students during the pandemic. The learning from home experience added unexpected challenges to students’ education and learning, including technical, IT and connectivity issues and persisting struggles with personal well-being, anxiety, and depression, as summarised in Table 9.
2. Wellbeing & resilience
Academic year 2020–2021 (spring semester/ study 2).
The advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions implemented on national and local levels resulted in extensive uncertainty amongst our students. The third national lockdown in spring 2021 (Jan 6th – March 7th) resulted in an exponential decrease in students’ wellbeing (Study S2), with 43.7% of level 4 (L4) students, 72.5% of level 5 (L5), and 42.9% of level 6 (L6) students reporting of “poor” or “very poor” mental health (Fig 2), also reflected in Table 10. All year groups reported a “large” mental health decline from semester 1 to semester 2 in academic year 2020–2021 (study conducted shortly after the third national lockdown). Such a prominent change in wellbeing was not observed again during the lifetime of this study.
Participants perception of their own current wellbeing from November 2020 (Study 1) to May 2023 (Study 4). Students have been surveyed in November 2020 (S1-L4, S1-L5, S1-L6), April 2021 (S2-S4, S2-L5, S2-L6), March 2022 (S3-L4, S3-L4, S3-L6) and May 2023 (S4-L4, S4-L5, S4-L6). For cohort sizes and student grouping see Table 1. Single-answer question. Data shown and displayed in percentages.
Students reported a range of variables which might have affected their wellbeing and mental health in academic year 2020−2021, most prominently the lack of opportunities for communication with others (students, adults, peers), and missing a community feeling, which was even more evident after the third national lockdown (Jan 6th to March 7th, 2021). From spring 2021 onwards, students were more exposed to bereavements caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus infections and their consequences within close family or friends (Table 11).
During times of remote or blended learning students were supported by their respective year coordinator, personal tutors, and module leaders at the biology department, who all reached out to students on a regular basis. Frequent changes in national and local Covid-19 policies and regulations resulted in ad hoc timetable adjustments with often dire consequences for students’ learning experiences. In the April 2021 Study S2 feedback was sought on participants’ achievements on building-up resilience in these challenging times and how students perceived their own resilience at this stage (Table 12). Additional supportive information on resilience development can be found in supplemental S2 Table.
3. Consequences of the pandemic & students’ expectations from providers
We conducted two post-pandemic follow-up surveys shedding light on long-term consequences for higher education bioscience students on learning experiences and wellbeing because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The first post-pandemic survey took place in March 2022 (Study S3) followed by a final survey in April 2023 (Study S4).
Academic year 2021–2022 (spring semester/ study 3).
Participants provided feedback on the (long-term) effects of (pandemic) online and blended teaching on their current learning progression (Table 13).
Academic years 2022–2023 (spring semester/ study 4).
In April 2023 (Study S4) participants provided insights to which extend the consequences of the pandemics still affected their [current] social life (Table 14).
Amongst all participants surveyed in this study at level L4, 56% report about anxiety (disorders) and/or autism spectrum disorders (ASD), as well as 38% at level L5, and 42% at level L6, respectively. A year 2 biotechnology student expressed their struggles with on-campus learning in this statement, captured in the Study S3 (March 2022):
“[…] The long drive to uni[versity] affects my ability to learn at in-person lectures - I feel, much like last year, I would learn a lot more sat at home in my own environment. […] As someone with autism it’s difficult to form new routines and sometimes, as silly as this sounds, my entire day can be ruined from just one thing like someone sitting in a seat I usually sit in which is why it’s important to ensure that online learning is still an option when it comes to lectures as, with some of us, the commute can seriously impact our ability to learn” (L5/5418/26a/S3).
As a result of the Study 3 preliminary data analysis (Table 13) and conversations with students we extended our questionnaire for the final survey in April 2023 allowing additional insight on participants’ pre-university learning restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic (Tables 14 and 15).
Years after the pandemic – studies S3 and S4 compared
In the 2022 follow-up study (Study S3) students still felt the imminent effects of the pandemic and voiced their estrangement from a pre-pandemic social behaviour, which was less evident in the 2023, Study 4 (Table 17).
Throughout the pandemic, students acquired various new IT and computer skills. In our follow-up surveys in 2022 and 2023, respectively, we sought feedback from participants how they felt about their IT literacy and technology advancements (Table 18).
Students in this study returned to pre-pandemic, on-campus learning setting from September 2021, as requested by the Office for Students (OfS) and enabled by national Covid-19 regulations [32]. With digital teaching technology now widely available enabling colleagues to deliver blended and online sessions, students’ perceptions on future teaching practices were captured in Study 3 (2022) and Study 4 (2023). Students expressed a clear preference for a combination on blended and face-to-face teaching but rated purely online teaching less favourably (Table 19). Preferences had not changed from 2022 to 2023.
Students were surveyed about which of the non-LMS embedded learning tools and software introduced for remote and blended learning during the Covid-19 pandemic, that the department should continue to use in its teaching delivery. Students from all cohorts mentioned YouTube (54.7%, range 48.8–65.5%), Kahoot! (49.4%, range 39.9–52.5%), LinkedIn Learning (8.9%, range 3.3–26.8%), Socrative (11.5%, range 3.3–20.3%), Padlet (10.1%, range 0.0–29.3%), and Clinical Key Students (12.3%, range 3.3–26.8%). Not all students in all year groups had previous experience with all mentioned online learning tools.
We captured our final year undergraduate bioscience students’ career plans and how these have been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and its consequences on access to training, job-preparedness, and availability of graduate bioscience roles (Table 20). During the pandemic we observed that a higher than usual number of students continued with their education (MRes, MSc, PhD), either with us or elsewhere instead of pursuing a paid-for career. A year 3 (L6) ecology & conservation student’s voice from the November 2020 (Study S1) summarises this reasoning:
“[The] change of dissertation topic meant I had interest in a different postgraduate course (…), also I feel by doing a master [degree] I avoid the current situation with a lack of jobs (L6/0169/61/S1)”.
A human biology student in their final year expressed their worries about lack of job vacancies for bioscience graduates in the March 2021 Study S2:
“I am applying for full-time jobs within the NHS, Civil Service, local universities, and other public services. I will continue working my part-time job until I secure a full-time position. […] I am concerned about high levels of unemployment at the minute making securing a job very difficult. I have already applied to a large number of jobs that I am sufficiently qualified for and have been rejected by every one of them. I think it is going to be a long process” (L6/2144/69/S2).
Discussion
1. Learning during the pandemic & adjusting to a new challenging situation
This manuscript evaluated students’ perception on studying and completing a bioscience degree during and after the Covid-19 pandemic from November 2020 to March 2023 in a cross-sectional, mixed-method approach by inviting undergraduate students to four independent, anonymous JISC online surveys as part of our departmental Learn!Bio study.
We firstly evaluated bioscience students’ perceptions on their learning experiences and how students adjusted to the practical and learning-relevant challenges which had arisen in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic from November 2020 to spring 2021. All undergraduate students enrolled at the biology department at EHU were eligible to participate. Students were invited via a mass email sent to their student email inbox, which included a link to the anonymous JISC online survey. Students received a reminder email two weeks later.
Edge Hill University is a located in West Lancashire with a predominantly White (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British) population (96.9%, 2021 census [33]) population. Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh citizens and Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean, or African citizens account for only 1.05% and 0.33% of the local community (2021 census [33]), respectively. While the university population is slightly more diverse, it still reflects the local demographic trends having a primarily White (92%) student body, with Asian (3%), Black (2%), Mixed (2%), and other ethnicities (1%) making up the remainder [34]; However, while 4.3% of the local population are non-UK passport holders (in comparison: Manchester: 19.2%, City of London: 34% [35]) only 2% of EHU student cohort are non-UK domiciled. Gender distribution at the university leans towards female students (70%), with males making up 30% and a significant portion of the student population is below 21 years old (75%), while 16% are aged 21–30, and 8% are over 30; However, all Biology students are aged 18 and above [34].
There is a significant internal disparity in income distribution in West Lancashire, with 15 out of 273 neighbourhoods ranked amongst the 20% most deprived with an income deprivation of 39%. In contrast 11/273 neighbourhoods in West Lancashire are ranked amongst the least deprived in England with an income deprivation of 2.7% [36]. This is also reflected in the university’s student cohort, with indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) data reveal that 15% of students are from the most deprived quintile (Q1), 48% fall into quintiles 2 and 3, and 38% are from the least deprived quintiles (Q4 and Q5) [36]. The university attracts a high number of local students who continue to live at home during their studies, the demographic data underscores the internal disparities in income distribution within this region as an example across the UK and highlights the essential role of all HEIs globally fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for students from varied backgrounds enabling access to higher education and academic opportunities.
Study satisfaction captured amongst the students in the November 2020 (Study S1, Table 3) was well above the national average, when compared with data from a national-wide Student Covid Insights Survey (SCIS) collected in October and November 2020 showing a 29% rate of dissatisfaction or severe dissatisfaction amongst surveyed students with their studies (71% satisfaction rate [13]). This contrasts with 88.1% and above of satisfaction amongst students in this study.
Staff at our university offered a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous teaching approaches with pre-recorded podcasts and presentations made available in preparation for on-campus or remote synchronous session. Most students agreed that remotely accessible learning content was generally well made (Table 5), a viewpoint also observed by other studies in the UK and globally [37,38]. Students in year 1 (L4) had only little opportunity to acquire the endurance and attention span to engage with lengthy learning content during their often-interrupted school/college education, which might explain their reluctance to engage with longer (20 minutes-plus) remote learning units [39].
Most students in this study felt they had been affected in their learning by the national lockdown and the online-only teaching in spring 2021 (Table 7). This result is supported by national-wide evidence from the 2021 National Student Survey (NSS) showing that only 47.6% of all respondents had been content with the delivery of their learning and teaching during the Covid pandemic, which was further emphasised by data made available from the Student Covid-19 Insights Survey (SCIS), reporting that 52% of students who had been in higher education during the pandemic felt that Covid-19 had a “significant” or “major impact” on their academic performance [13,40,41].
An above national average number of participants captured in this manuscript changed accommodation at least once during academic year 2020/21 (Table 8), with many students moving between their “home” and “study accommodation”. Nation-wide 81% of all students remained in their study-related accommodation in academic year 2020/21 [40].
A high percentage of students in this cohort lived off campus, predominantly with their parents (43%) or with partners/with their own children (18%) during the height of the pandemic, a factor which might has decreased their satisfaction with their studies, as space and IT resources for learning might have been restricted. A recent study by colleagues from the Aston University has shown that students from more deprived households had rated their study experiences less favourable during the pandemic, as these students had more frequently been deprived in one or more dimension [37], and might have lacked access to their own computer, fast internet or a suitable learning environment.
Accessing timetabled eLearning sessions with a lack of technology and/or a quiet space to concentrate was identified as a main hurdle for many participants as captured in November 2020 (Study S1). Access to a personal computer, computer accessories (microphone, camera) and internet connectivity was also a worry for many participants (Table 9). Our university, as many other HEIs in the UK, provided students in need, with laptops and associated equipment (cameras, headsets etc) for long-term loan, along with internet dongles to enable equal access to eLearning for all students. This resulted in the eradication of unobtainable access to personal computers by March 2021 (Table 9).
2. Wellbeing & resilience
An NHS digital survey analysis conducted on members of the public living in England and published in 2016 concluded that one in five women and one in eight men suffered from a common mental health condition prior to the Covid-19 pandemic [42]. Anxiety and symptoms of anxiety had been more evident in the UK general population before the Covid-19 pandemic (21%) compared to other countries, for instance Belgium (11%), New Zealand (6.1%), the USA (8.2%) or Sweden (14.2%), as recently reported by The King’s Fund (see reference [43], pages 33 and following). The marked differences in levels of anxiety and related conditions experienced by members of the public in the UK as compared to members of the public in other countries increased during the Covid-19 pandemic, with only 30.8% of the public in the USA expressing symptoms of anxiety, and 22.3% of the public in EU member states (averaged) reporting of anxiety symptoms during these times. This compares to 49.6% of the public in the UK with anxiety symptoms during the pandemic [43,44].
The UK experienced a full, strict national Covid-19 lockdown from January 6th to March 7th, 2021.
Shortly after the third national lockdown, in April 2021, data for the second survey (Study S2) was captured, which showed a marked decrease in students overall wellbeing (Fig 2). Students at level 5 (class of 2019−2022, shown in yellow), reporting well below the national average on poor mental health as compared to all UK adults. This student cohort’s mental health, captured at this time point was also well below the reported average as reported in the April Student Covid-19 Insights Survey, in which 63% of all students expressed”slightly or much worse now” mental health since their started their studies in autumn 2020 [40] This trend in mental health decline amongst university students was also identified in a recent study by Chen and Lucock [45].
Students of the class 2019–2022 (displayed with yellow background) had overall reported more critical feedback and negative impressions in all surveys S1-S3. The class of 2019–2022 experienced Covid-19 restrictions throughout all years of their undergraduate studies, from the spring semester 2020 to summer 2022. This was also evidenced in students’ perception on their mental health changes from autumn 2021 to spring 2022 (Table 10), with students in the cohort of 2019–2022, showing a more severe decline in their wellbeing compared to students in the class of 2020–2023 cohort (displayed with green background). Nation-wide, students’ mental health experienced a further decline from autumn 2021 to spring 2022, as evidenced in the SCIC March 2022 survey [46].
Recent studies have shown that restrictions to campus life and student services affected those students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, with often poor “networking capital” [12] and learners with (child) care responsibilities or inadequate IT equipment or internet connectivity, more severely [45,47]. Interestingly, our data indicates that campus closures and restrictions to libraries, IT rooms and on-campus teaching had a cross-sectional impact on all students in all years, except for the 2020−23 cohort (shown with green background) captured in the November 2020 study (S1), who might have capitalised on their previous (school/college) social network structures for support and wellbeing (Table 11) during their first term at university.
In the April 2021 survey (S2) we captured students’ perception on the development of new skills and students’ pathway to resilience (Table 12, supplementary Table S2). Feedback from students on their resilience and acquired skills seems to conflict with an overall perception of their current wellbeing at this time (“poor”, “very poor”), as students in years 1 and 3 (levels 4 and 6) provided a positive self-rating for their transition to resilience and have recognised the acquisition of various new soft skills, IT skills, as well as job-relevant graduate attributes required for a role in biosciences. Students in year 2 (level 5) had been more critical about their skills development and resilience advancements while these students expressed the largest decline in mental health across all year groups (45.5%).
3. Consequences of the pandemic & students’ expectations from providers
In two follow-up, post-pandemic surveys this manuscript captured students’ perception on long-term consequences of blended and remote learning on their bioscience education, wellbeing, and social life in academic years 2021−2022 (Study S3) and academic year 2022−2023 (Study S4). Responses show that 76.7%, 88.1%, and 90.2% of all students in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, indicated that the previously experienced Covid-19 pandemic restrictions affected their higher education in 2022 (Table 13). Interestingly this effect continued to impact 51.9%, 56.1%, and 86.7%, of all year 1, 2, and 3 students, respectively, one year later (Study S4, Table 15).
Covid-19 had impacted not only students’ higher education but also their school and college education (Table 16), with those from the most deprived backgrounds reporting more often that they have fallen behind (42%) than those from the least deprived backgrounds (26%) [48]. Many if not all outreach activities had been cancelled during the pandemic years, affecting career choices and accession to university programmes, with those from deprived areas more affected than others [47]. Our findings are supported by a recent meta-analysis investigating student learning outcome across various countries by De Pietro et al. concluding with a significant learning deficit in math and science, as a consequence of pandemic learning, indicating that long-term support in STEM subjects might be required for school and early-stage university students, allowing equal and fair chances for all learners catching up with their learning [49].
In our study, students’ perception of their IT and computer literacy had notably increased from November 2020 to May 2023 with 92.9% of the students in the 2020–2023 cohort (green) self-reporting on improved IT skills (up from 12.5%, Table 12 vs Table 18), which is indicative of a pathway to resilience and an adaption to a new learning environment. This is further evidenced by feedback provided to the question on how future teaching should be mediated (online, blended, campus-based/face-to-face). Students were supportive of both, face-to-face and blended synchronous teaching, with blended/hybrid teaching allowing students to attend live streamed sessions remotely (Table 19). Our department, as most HEIs in the UK require students to attend physically for all scheduled sessions. In various free text responses students reported their reasons not to attend on campus, including public transport not being available at all/on certain days/impacted by strike actions, care responsibilities, and sickness (including mental health and chronic conditions). Many students expressed worries about the increased living costs impacting their travel arrangements to/from campus for “just this session”.
The financial aspects of attending university sessions was also captured in the recent ONS Student Cost of Living Insights Study (SCoLIS) from spring 2023, which suggested that 91% of all students worry/worry very about their finances and that 49% of all students have financial difficulties [50]. A recent study by Salem and colleagues points to evidence on best learning outcomes with blended learning strategies while critically arguing for highest students’ overall motivation and satisfaction through face-to-face learning modalities [51].
The Covid-19 pandemic had increased the prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders amongst all students in the UK and had made it difficult for those with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and other common mental health disorders affecting their mental wellbeing in the return to face-to-face learning and on-campus life [15].
Interestingly, 53.3%, 64.4%, and 61% of all participants in year 1, 2, and 3, respectively, reported in the March 2022 (Study S3) survey that the “lockdowns gave me a nice break from the everyday social situations”, returning to 14.8%, 22%, and 20% for students in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively in the May 2023 (Study S4) survey (Table 17), indicating that most students had been impacted by the social restrictions on social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic.
We asked year 3 (level 6) students about their postgraduation career plans as bio-scientists and if these plans have changed because of the pandemic (Table 20); this data should be studied with caution as feedback was provided by different student cohorts at different time points and at different cross points during and after the pandemic. Final year students of the class 2019–2022 (yellow) showed the highest level of insecurity in reference to their postgraduation plans, while this cohort also struggled most with their pathway to resilience and adaptability to a new learning environment.
Conclusion
This study highlights the strengths of bioscience students from all backgrounds to complete an undergraduate degree while acquiring new, graduate-ready attributes and skills, including extended IT competencies during the Covid-19 pandemic. Our results have shown that students can report poor mental health while already developing resilience, indicating tailored support can aid students’ resilience performance. Students surveyed during the Covid-19 pandemic had adjusted with ease to digital teaching provisions with current students voicing a clear preference for a subject-specific approach to teaching post-pandemic, entailing a mix of blended (synchronous) and face-to-face (on-campus) sessions, thus reducing students’ significantly risen living costs and meeting students’ often complex personal circumstances.
Study limitations
The limitations of the study are mainly focused on the characteristics of the sample group and the data collected. The study had a low participation rate, with a total of 317 out of 1220 (25.98%) voluntarily participants, all studying towards a BSc (Hons) degree in the biological sciences. Therefore, these results only represent the experiences of a small cohort of students all within in a similar discipline, making it difficult to generalise the results especially across different disciplines who may have a lesser dependency of practical skills. Most participants, by nature of the EHU student demographic, originated from the local area and were therefore subject to the disparity of pandemic experiences between some of England’s most affluent and deprived backgrounds as well as different lockdown restrictions. This resulted in increasing response bias due to some students experiencing poor internet/technological access (prior to March 2021), suitable study space, and/or caring responsibilities, along with differences in local infection peaks and various local authority lockdown enforcements. For example, some students or their family members may have been symptomatic and/or under more severe lockdown restrictions during the survey period leading to more negative responses. Those who may have stronger opinions and/or more free time would be more likely to respond and to make more thoughtful responses. Additionally, survey questions were subjective and open to wide ranging inter-individual interpretations, expectations and biases, i.e., level and changes of mood. The original study design aimed for a comprehensive understanding of student wellbeing, changes to learning and resilience during the Covid-19 pandemic with a focus on open-question answers and an invitation to share lived experiences, resulting in limitations to rigorous statistical analysis. The study captured students’ perception of wellbeing, learning experiences and transition to resilience across multiple timepoints, but we have not been able to follow-up on individual students, as this study was entirely anonymous; Furthermore we did not receive permission to integrate personalised demographic data, which hinders comprehensive multivariant data analysis.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Learn!Bio study design flowchart.
This study is based on a constructivism-based teaching, learning, and research worldview. Data collection was completed in a convergent parallel mixed method approach from November 2020 to April 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300824.s001
(PDF)
S2 Fig. Lack of microphone and camera use during online classes.
Students’ responses to a multiple-answers question in the April 2021 study S2. For year 1 (level 4, L4), 16 participants provided 32 answers, for level 5 (L5) 11 participants provided 32 answers, and for level 6 (L6), 7 participants provided 18 answers. Results displayed in percentages.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300824.s002
(PDF)
S1 Table. Students’ accommodations in semester 1, academic year 20/21.
Responses from the Learn!Bio Study 2 in April 2021, one month after the third national lockdown had come to an end. Multiple answers possible. Numbers in brackets after the level L4-L6 indicate the total participants followed by total answers provided. Results displayed in percentages.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300824.s003
(PDF)
S2 Table. New skills and talents developed during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Responses from the Learn!Bio Study 2 in April 2021, one month after the third national lockdown had come to an end. Multiple answers possible. Numbers in brackets indicate the total participants followed by total answers provided. Results displayed in percentages.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300824.s004
(PDF)
References
- 1. Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020;91(1):157–60. pmid:32191675
- 2.
UK Parliament. Coronavirus Act 2020. 2020 [cited 10.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted
- 3.
Brown J, Ferguson D, Barber S. Coronavirus: The lockdown laws. Research Briefing from the House of Commons Library. 2022 [cited 10.01.2024]. Available from: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8875/
- 4.
Office for Students (OfS). Letter to accountable officers: Regulation during the current phase of the coronavirus pandemic. 2021 [cited 08.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/letter-to-aos-regulation-during-current-phase-of-pandemic/
- 5.
Institute for Government (UK). Timeline of UK coronavirus lockdowns. 2022 [cited 07.01.2025]. Available from: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/timeline-lockdown-web.pdf
- 6.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Subject Benchmark Statements for Bioscience. 2023 [cited 04.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements/subject-benchmark-statement-biosciences#.
- 7.
Coward K, Gray JV. Audit of Practical Work undertaken by Undergraduate Bioscience Students across the UK Higher Education Sector. 2014 [cited 08.02.2024]. Available from: https://www.rsb.org.uk/policy/education-policy/higher-education-policy/ug-audit-of-practical-work
- 8. Gya R, Bjune AE. Taking practical learning in STEM education home: Examples from do-it-yourself experiments in plant biology. Ecol Evol. 2021;11(8):3481–7. pmid:33898005
- 9. King CE, Trevino C, Biswas P. Online Laboratory Experiment Learning Module for Biomedical Engineering Physiological Laboratory Courses. Biomed Eng Educ. 2021;1(1):201–8. pmid:35178535
- 10. Machuca-Tzili FA, Padilla-Ortiz AL, Martínez-Gutiérrez D. Mechanical-acoustical analogy: From laboratory to home during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Acoust Soc Am. 2023;154(3):1448–58. pmid:37675969
- 11. Panebianco CJ, Iatridis JC, Weiser JR. Teaching principles of biomaterials to undergraduate students during the covid-19 pandemic with at-home inquiry-based learning laboratory experiments. Chem Eng Educ. 2022;56(1):22–35. pmid:35528968
- 12. Raaper R, Brown C. The Covid-19 pandemic and the dissolution of the university campus: implications for student support practice. J Prof Capit Commun. 2020;5(3–4):343–9.
- 13.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Coronavirus and the impact on students in higher education in England: September to December 2020. 2020 [cited 05.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/articles/coronavirusandtheimpactonstudentsinhighereducationinenglandseptembertodecember2020/2020-12-21
- 14. Surendran S, Hopkins S, Aji AS, Abubakar S, Clayton T, Dunuwila T, et al. Perspectives of teaching during the COVID-19 lockdown: a comparison of teaching in university bioscience programmes from around the world. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2021;41(3):1133–54.
- 15. Gogoi M, Webb A, Pareek M, Bayliss CD, Gies L. University Students’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the UniCoVac Qualitative Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9322. pmid:35954680
- 16.
Hughes G, Spanner L. The University Mental Health Charter. 2019 [cited 08.01.2025]. Available from: https://www.studentminds.org.uk/uploads/3/7/8/4/3784584/191208_umhc_artwork.pdf
- 17.
APA Dictionary of Psychology: Resilience: American Psychological Association. 2024 [cited 10.12.2024]. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/resilience
- 18.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Measuring national well-being: domains and measures 2013-2023 [cited 08.01.2025]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/datasets/measuringnationalwellbeingdomainsandmeasures
- 19.
Reich K. Konstruktivistische Didaktik - Das Lehr- und Studienbuch mit Online-Methodenpool. 5th edition. Beltz Pädagogik: Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG; 2012.
- 20.
Boldrini F. Montessori Method to Motivate Adults.
- 21. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB. How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017;69(Suppl 2):107–31. pmid:28989188
- 22. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. pmid:17941715
- 23. Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82. pmid:12964174
- 24. Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Results in Health Science Mixed Methods Research Through Joint Displays. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(6):554–61. pmid:26553895
- 25.
Cresswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications; 2021.
- 26. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. pmid:17872937
- 27. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
- 28.
Graham C. Anonymisation: Managing data protection risk - code of practice Information Commissioner’s Office: ICO. 2012 [cited 10.01.2024]. Available from: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf
- 29.
UK Prime Minister’s Office. PM Commons statement on coronavirus: 22 September 2020 [cited 08.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-commons-statement-on-coronavirus-22-september-2020
- 30.
UK Prime Minister’s Office. Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 30 September 2020 [cited 08.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-statement-on-coronavirus-covid-19-30-september-2020#:~:text=Speech-,Prime%20Minister’s%20statement%20on%20coronavirus%20(COVID%2D19)%3A%2030%20September,at%20the%20coronavirus%20press%20conference.&text=and%20I%20explained%20that%20the,expect%20many%20more%20daily%20deaths
- 31.
UK Government - Department for Education. Christmas guidance set out for university students. 2020 [cited 08.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/christmasguidance-set-out-for-university-students
- 32.
Hubble S, Bolton P, Lewis J. Coronavirus: HE/FE return to campus in England 2021. Research Briefing from the House of Commons Library: UK Parliament. 2021 [cited 10.01.2024]. Available from: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9142/
- 33.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Economic activity status by ethnic group. 2023 [cited 08.02.2024]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/RM018/editions/2021/versions/3
- 34.
Office for Students (OfS). Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Dashboard. 2024 [cited 07.01.2025]. To access data for a specific provider, select the provider’s name. We used the 2022-2023 datasets for this study. Available from: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/tef-data-dashboard/
- 35.
National Office for Statistics (ONS). International migration, England and Wales. 2022 [updated 02.11.2022cited 25.01.2024]. Available from: International migration, England and Wales: Census. 2021.
- 36.
UK Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. English indices of deprivation. 2019. [cited 24.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019
- 37. Bashir A, Bashir S, Rana K, Lambert P, Vernallis A. Post-COVID-19 Adaptations; the Shifts Towards Online Learning, Hybrid Course Delivery and the Implications for Biosciences Courses in the Higher Education Setting. Front Educ. 2021;6.
- 38. Ortega-Donaire L, Bailén-Expósito J, Álvarez-García C, López-Medina IM, Álvarez-Nieto C, Sanz-Martos S. Satisfaction of Online University Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(10):1421. pmid:37239706
- 39.
Albiser E, Echazarra A, Fraser P, Fülöp G, Schwabe M, Tremblay K. School education during Covid-19: Were teachers and students ready?: OECD; 2020 [cited 17.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/education/United-Kingdom-coronavirus-education-country-note.pdf
- 40.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Coronavirus and higher education students: England, 24 May to 2 June 2021. 2021 [cited 17.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandhighereducationstudents/england24mayto2june2021
- 41.
Office for Students (OfS). The National Student Survey: Student experience during the pandemic. 2021 [cited 17.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/the-national-student-survey-student-experience-during-the-pandemic/
- 42.
McManus S, Bebbington P, Jenkins R, Brugha T, editors. Mental Health and Wellbeing in England: Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014. Leeds: NHS digital; 2016 [cited 18.01.2024]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a802e2fe5274a2e8ab4ea71/apms-2014-full-rpt.pdf
- 43.
Anandaciva S, and the The King’s Fund. How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries? 2023 [cited 10.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/nhs-compare-health-care-systems-other-countries?page=1#comments-top
- 44.
OECD. Health at a Glance. 2021 [cited 12.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/ae3016b9-en
- 45. Chen T, Lucock M. The mental health of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online survey in the UK. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0262562. pmid:35020758
- 46.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Coronavirus and higher education students: 25 February to 7 March 2022. [cited 30.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandhighereducationstudents/25februaryto7march2022
- 47.
Montacute R, and the Sutton Trust. Social mobility and Covid-19 - Implications of the Covid-19 crisis for educational inequality. 2020 [cited 29.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19-and-Social-Mobility-1.pdf
- 48.
Office for National Statistics (ONS). Deprivation inequalities in the experiences of GCSE students during coronavirus (COVID-19), England: September 2021 to March 2022. 2023. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/articles/deprivationinequalitiesintheexperiencesofgcsestudentsduringcoronaviruscovid19england/september2021tomarch2022
- 49. Di Pietro G. The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev. 2023;39:100530. pmid:36987429
- 50.
National Office for Statistics (ONS). Cost of living and higher education students, England: 30 January to 13 February 2023. [cited 30.01.2024]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/bulletins/costoflivingandhighereducationstudentsengland/30januaryto13february2023
- 51. Salem IE, AL-Alawi A, Moosa S, El-Maghraby L, Alkathiri NA, Elbaz AM. Examining different learning modes: A longitudinal study of business administration students’ performance. Int J Manag Educ. 2024;22(1):100927.