PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AND RESILIENCE OF SLOVENIAN 
STUDENTS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Nina ROPRET 1*, Urška KOŠIR 2, Saška ROŠKAR 1, Vito KLOPČIČ 1, Mitja VRDELJA 1
1 National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia, Trubarjeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada 
Received: Jul 15, 2022
Accepted: Feb 16, 2023
Original scientific article
*Corresponding author: Tel. 386 1 2441-569; E-mail: nina.ropret@nijz.si
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
101
PSIHOLOŠKO BLAGOSTANJE IN ODPORNOST SLOVENSKIH 
ŠTUDENTOV V ČASU PANDEMIJE COVID-19
© National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia. 
Ropret N, Košir U, Roškar S, Klopčič V, Vrdelja M. Psychological well-being and resilience of Slovenian students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108.  
doi: 10.2478/sjph-2023-0014.
ABSTRACT
Keywords: 
Students
Psychological 
well-being
Resilience
COVID-19 pandemic
IZVLEČEK
Ključne besede: 
študenti
psihološko blagostanje
psihološka odpornost
pandemija COVID-19
Introduction: Students’ mental health is recognised as an important public health issue, and the strict measures 
and many changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated this. The aims of the study 
were thus to explore psychological well-being among university students in Slovenia during the beginning of the 
second lockdown, and to assess associations among their psychological well-being, demographic characteristics, 
presence of a chronic health condition, and resilience.
Methods: The Slovenian online cross-sectional survey was performed as part of a large-scale international 
survey led by the COVID-HL Consortium, between the 2nd and 23rd November 2020. The study was carried 
out on a sample of 3,468 university students (70% female) in Slovenia, aged between 18 to 40 (M=22/SD=3). In 
addition to sociodemographic data and that on the presence of a chronic health condition, data on subjective 
social status (SSS), psychological well-being (WHO-5) and resilience (CD-RISC 10) was also gathered.
Results: In our study 52% of university students reported good psychological well-being. Hierarchical binary 
logistic regression revealed that male, older students, those with higher perceived subjective social status, 
students without a chronic health condition, and those with higher score on resilience were more likely to have 
good psychological well-being. Resilience was the strongest predictor of psychological well-being in our study.
Conclusions: Systematic preventive approaches/interventions in the field of mental health should be 
implemented among students in Slovenia. In this context it is important to develop and deliver programmes for 
enhancing resilience, which is an important protective factor in times of mental distress.
Uvod: Duševno zdravje študentov je prepoznano kot pomemben javnozdravstveni problem. Strogi ukrepi 
in številne spremembe, ki so posledica pandemije COVID-19, so lahko dodatno vplivale na duševno zdravje 
študentov. Cilj raziskave je bil preučiti psihološko blagostanje študentov v Sloveniji na začetku drugega 
“lockdowna” oz. zaprtja družbe. Prav tako smo želeli preveriti povezanost med psihološkim blagostanjem, 
sociodemografskimi značilnostmi, prisotnostjo kronične bolezni ter psihološko odpornostjo.
Metode: Slovenska spletna presečna raziskava je bila izvedena v obdobju med 2. in 23. novembrom 2020 v 
okviru obsežne mednarodne raziskave, ki jo je vodil konzorcij COVID-HL. Raziskava je bila opravljena na vzorcu 
3.468 študentov (70 % žensk) v Sloveniji, starih 18–40 let (M = 22, SD = 3). Poleg sociodemografskih podatkov ter 
podatka glede prisotnosti kronične bolezni so bili zbrani tudi podatki o subjektivnem socialnem statusu (SSS), 
psihološkem blagostanju (WHO-5) in psihološki odpornosti (CD-RISC 10).
Rezultati: V naši raziskavi je 52 % študentov poročalo o dobrem psihološkem blagostanju. Hierarhična binarna 
logistična regresija je pokazala, da imajo višji obet za psihološko blagostanje moški, starejši študentje, 
študentje z višjim SSS, študentje brez kroničnih zdravstvenih težav ter študentje z višjim dosežkom pri 
psihološki odpornosti. Psihološka odpornost je bila najmočnejši napovednik dobrega psihološkega blagostanja.
Zaključek: Vpeljati je treba sistematične preventivne pristope/ukrepe na področju duševnega zdravja med 
študenti v Sloveniji. Razviti in izvajati bi bilo treba programe krepitve psihološke odpornosti, ki je pomemben 
varovalni dejavnik v času duševne stiske. 
1 INTRODUCTION
Mental health issues have been becoming more common, 
especially among adolescents and young adults (1). Mental 
illness is most likely to onset during the transition from 
adolescence to adulthood (2-4), which is why the mental 
health of university students is recognised as an important 
public health issue. Students’ heightened psychological 
distress may be due to academic and financial pressures, 
isolation, and loneliness (3, 4). Despite the high prevalence 
of mental health problems in this population, research 
suggests that two thirds of students with mental health 
problems do not seek professional help (4-6). 
Students were a group that was especially impacted by 
the COVID-19 crisis, due to the sudden change in life 
circumstances, school lockdowns (and thus home-based 
distance-learning), prolonged social isolation, loss of 
income or student jobs, potential health risks to family 
members and financial constraints (7-9). Students were 
also confronted with uncertainty about their futures, i.e. 
a greater risk of unemployment, career and economic 
prospects, all of which took a toll on the mental health 
of this vulnerable population (8), and the many other 
challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic also 
affected the mental health of students (10-12). 
The literature provides different measures and indicators 
of mental health, one of them being psychological well-
being, which broadly covers the entire continuum of 
mental health. Definitions of psychological well-being 
as well as the measures used in the literature vary (13). 
One frequently used measure of psychological well-being 
is the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-
5), which measures negative aspects such as presence of 
depression symptomology, but also positive aspects such 
as positive mood, vitality, and interest (14). 
Studies which used the WHO-5 mostly report a high 
prevalence of poor psychological well-being among 
students during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, 
in two distinct Australian studies, the prevalence of 
students with good psychological well-being was found to 
be similar, at 33.7% (15) and 34.7% (16). An even lower 
proportion of students with good psychological well-
being (27.8%) was found in a study on German students 
(17). However, the results regarding the predictors were 
somewhat contradictory, as one of the Australian studies 
found being female and having a lower subjective social 
status were associated with lower well-being (16), while 
in the other age, gender and educational level did not 
emerge as predictors of well-being (15). A Slovenian survey 
reported the highest prevalence of poor psychological 
well-being in those aged 18 to 29 years as compared to 
all other age groups (18). This study also revealed poorer 
psychological well-being among participants with chronic 
health conditions (18).
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
102
In addition to psychological well-being, a number of 
studies also focused on the prevalence of depressive 
symptomology in students during the pandemic. The 
findings are inconclusive, however, as the reported 
prevalence ranges from 22% to 81% (19-21). For example, 
a study (19) conducted in Slovenia reported that 55% of 
students had moderate to severe symptoms of depression, 
while a longitudinal study (22) found that 26% of Slovenian 
young adults (20 to 40 years of age) showed a risk for 
depression at the baseline measurement, as did 23% at 
three-month follow-up.
An important building block of psychological well-being 
is resilience, and positive relationships between these 
two constructs have been found in different studies (23, 
24). The American Psychological Association (APA) defines 
resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of 
adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant 
sources of stress, and that it involves the capability of 
“bouncing back” from difficult experiences (25). Moreover, 
recent studies have identified resilience as an important 
factor to cope with the mental health challenges derived 
from COVID-19 (26-29).
To date, the majority of research on students’ mental 
health in Slovenia focused mainly on the negative aspects 
of such health (e.g. depressive, anxious symptomology, 
etc.). Our study attempts to expand this knowledge by 
1) exploring psychological well-being among university 
students in Slovenia, and 2) examining the associations 
between the psychological well-being, demographic 
characteristics, presence of a chronic health condition, 
and resilience during the beginning of second wave of 
the epidemic in Slovenia (2nd to 23rd November 2020). 
Developing a better understanding of how psychological 
well-being and resilience present among a large population 
of university students will help guide the development of 
interventions as well as policies in the future. 
2 METHODS
2.1 Subjects
The online cross-sectional survey was carried out as part 
of a large-scale international survey led by the COVID-HL 
Consortium (30). The adapted Slovenian version of the 
survey (a scale for measuring resilience, CD-RISC 10, was 
added in Slovenia) was conducted between November 2 
– 23, 2020, as an online survey, designed with the 1KA 
or EnKlikAnketa (31). In Slovenia, the second wave of 
the epidemic was declared on 19th October 2020 (and 
lasted until 15th June 2021), and due to the deteriorating 
epidemiological situation strict measures were 
reintroduced for this period (32). Prior to completing the 
survey, the respondents were informed about its aims and 
that participation was voluntary, as well as the conditions 
of confidentiality and anonymity. 
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
103
A non-probability sample was used, including a two-
step invitation procedure. In the first step invitations to 
participate were sent via email to all faculties and colleges 
in Slovenia (16 colleges, 75 faculties, nine independent 
higher education institutions and two postgraduate 
schools). In the second step, all universities were asked to 
forward the invitation to their students by using internal 
communication channels (through websites, mailing lists, 
and social media). 
Prior to any statistical analysis, participants older than 40 
years were removed due to our focus on adolescents and 
young adults. After data cleaning and consistency checking, 
the final sample included 3,468 students (70% female), aged 
between 18 to 40 (M=22/SD=3). Based on a basic population 
of 71,957 university students in Slovenia (30th October 
2020) (33), this corresponds to 4.8% of the total.
Detailed demographic characteristics of the sample are 
presented in Table 1. 
(enrolled in a doctorate degree programme) and other. In 
addition to this sociodemographic data, we also gathered 
the data described below. 
2.2.1 Subjective social status (SSS) 
SSS was assessed using the MacArthur Scale, which includes 
a ladder with 10 steps (34, 35). Respondents were asked 
to position themselves at the step that best reflected 
their status on the social hierarchy, with higher values 
indicating a higher subjective social status. Respondents 
were categorised into three groups: low SSS (1-4), medium 
SSS (5-7) and high SSS (8-10) (36). 
2.2.2 Psychological well-being (World Health 
Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5))
The WHO-5 assesses psychological well-being (14). Each of 
the five items is scored on six-point response scale (0 = at 
no time, 5 = all of the time), considering the last 14 days. 
The raw score ranges from 0 (absence of psychological 
well-being) to 25 (maximal psychological well-being). 
Because scales measuring health-related quality of life 
are conventionally translated to a percentage scale from 0 
(absent) to 100 (maximal), it is recommended to multiply 
the raw score by 4 (14). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability 
coefficient in our sample was 0.89.
The WHO-5 score was dichotomised based on the existing 
cut-off points in literature (14). The two categories were 
“good psychological well-being” (scores>50) and “poor 
psychological well-being” (scores <=50). The scale has 
adequate validity both as a screening tool for depression 
and as an outcome measure in clinical trials, and has been 
applied successfully across a wide range of study fields 
(14). When applied as a screening tool for depression the 
literature provides different cut-offs (14), we decided to 
use a cut-off point of <=50, which is also recommend when 
screening for depression (14).
2.2.3 The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 
10)
The CD-RISC 10 is a 10-item scale that measures the ability 
to cope with adversity (sample items include: Having to 
cope with stress can make me stronger, Under pressure, I 
stay focused and think clearly) (37, 38). Respondents’ rate 
items on a five-point scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 
(true nearly all of the time), considering the past month. A 
respondent’s total score can range from 0-40 (38). Previous 
studies have shown good psychometric properties (38). 
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in our sample 
was 0.86. The total score on the CD-RISC 10 resilience scale 
was converted into a binary outcome variable based on the 
median split (<26 and ≥26). Scores below 26 were labelled 
as low resilience and scores 26 or above as high resilience.
Gender
Female
Male
Other
Age
18-21 years
22-26 years
27-40 years
Education level
Bachelor
Master
PhD, doctorate degree programme
Other
Subjective social status
Low
Medium
High
Chronic health condition
No
Yes
 
2,441
1,022
5
1,731
1,497
240
1,961
1,440
55
12
497
2,251
720
2,904
564
70.4
29.5
0.1
49.9
43.2
6.9
56.5
41.5
1.6
0.3
14.3
64.9
20.8
83.7
16.3
N %
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.
Notes: N – Number of participants
2.2 Measures
Sociodemographic variables, including age, gender, and 
current study degree level were collected, and a question 
regarding the presence of a chronic health condition 
(with a yes/no answer) was also included. Gender was 
categorised as female, male, or other; age as 18-21, 22-
26, and 27-40; and study course as Bachelor, Master, PhD 
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
104
2.3 Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed on complete data 
(N=3,468). To examine the associations among gender, 
age, educational level, presence of a chronic condition, 
resilience and psychological well-being, chi-square tests 
were performed. To limit the bias due to the small cell 
count we decided to remove both categories “other” 
in the variables gender (N=5) and education (N=12). 
Hierarchical binary logistic regression was performed with 
the WHO-5 result (good/poor psychological well-being) 
as the dependent variable. In the first step, sex, age, 
degree of study, and subjective social status were entered 
as covariates in the model, and then the presence of a 
chronic health condition was added in the second step. 
In the last step, resilience was added to the model. For 
all the results a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically 
significant. The data was analysed using SPSS version 26.
3 RESULTS
The average sum score on WHO-5 was 51.1 (SD=21.0). 
Overall, 52% of university students reported good 
psychological well-being, and 48% poor psychological well-
being. The average sum score on resilience was M=25.2, 
SD=6.7. 
The chi-square tests revealed statistically significant 
associations between gender, age, educational level, 
presence of a chronic condition, and resilience with good 
psychological well-being (Table 2). Good psychological well-
being was more common among male and older university 
students, those studying for a higher educational level, 
students with higher SSS, those with no chronic health 
condition, and those with a higher score for resilience. 
Effect sizes were weak for the majority of associations, 
except for resilience (Phi=0.374).
The results of the hierarchical binary logistic regression 
models are presented in Table 3. All three models were 
significant. The first step showed male, older students, 
those studying for a higher-level degree (except in the 
category of PhD students, where p was not statistically 
significant), and with higher perceived subjective social 
status, were more likely to have good psychological well-
being (χ2=163.10, df=6, p=0.000). The second step revealed 
that students with a chronic health condition were less 
likely to have good psychological well-being (χ2=176.95, 
df=7, p=0.000). Finally, the third step revealed students 
with higher resilience had four times higher odds of good 
psychological well-being (OR=4.28, 95% CI 3.69 – 4.96, 
p=0.000). This model was also significant (χ2=568.91, df=8, 
p=0.000). Overall, resilience was the strongest predictor of 
Gender
Female
Male
Age
18-21 years
22-26 years
27-40 years
Education level
Bachelor
Master
PhD
SSS
Low
Medium
High
Chronic health condition
No
Yes
Resilience
Low (<Mdn)
High (>= Mdn)
 
2,430
1,021
1,725
1,487
239
1,957
1,439
55
490
2,244
717
2,893
558
1,711
1,740
 
48.7
61.6
49.0
54.9
62.8
49.3
56.4
67.3
38.4
51.5
65.4
54.0
44.8
33.7
71.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
 
 
1,183
629
846
816
150
964
811
37
188
1,155
469
1,562
250
576
1,236
48.1 (1)
21.7 (2)
21.6 (2)
88,2(2)
15.8(1)
483.1(1)
 
Phi
Cramer V
Cramer V
Cramer V
Phi
Phi
0.118
0.079
0.079
0.160
-0.068
0.374
Total % p
Good (vs poor) psychological well-being
N(good) χ2(df) Effect size
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and associations between psychological well-being, sociodemographic characteristics, presence of a 
chronic health condition and resilience. 
Notes: N(good) – Number of participants with good psychological well-being; χ2 – Chi-square statistic; df – Degrees of freedom
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
105
4 DISCUSSION
The present study explored psychological well-being 
among university students in Slovenia during the beginning 
of the second lockdown (November 2020). The focus of 
the study was the associations among the demographic 
good psychological well-being in our study. The education 
level of PhD was not a statistically significant predictor 
in any step. In the last model (when the presence of a 
chronic health condition and resilience were added) also 
all the other education level subcategories lost their 
statistically significant predictive power.
Step 1
χ2(df)=163.10 (6) ***
Nagelkerke R^2=0.062
Gender (Ref = female)
Age
Education level (Ref = Bachelor)
Education level - Master
Education level - PhD
Subjective social status (Ref=low)
Subjective social status - Medium
Subjective social status - High
Step 2
χ2(df)=176.95 (7) ***
Nagelkerke R^2=0.067
Gender (Ref = female)
Age
Education level (Ref = Bachelor)
Education level - Master
Education level – PhD
SSS (Ref = Low)
SSS - Medium
SSS - High
Chronic health condition (Ref = No)
Step 3
χ2(df)=568.91 (8)***
Nagelkerke R^2=0.203
Gender (Ref = female)
Age
Education level (Ref = Bachelor)
Education level - Master
Education level - PhD
SSS (Ref = Low)
SSS - Medium
SSS - High
Chronic health condition (Ref = No)
Resilience (Ref = Low)
 
0.51
0.04
0.19
0.29
0.53
1.08
0.51
0.05
0.19
0.30
0.52
1.06
-0.35
0.28
0.03
0.14
0.40
0.36
0.77
-0.29
1.45
 
1.44-1.95
1.02-1.07
1.04-1.41
0.73-2.45 
1.39-2.08
2.30-3.73
1.42-1.93
1.02-1.07
1.04-1.40
0.73-2.48
1.38-2.06
2.27-3.68
0.58-0.85
1.12-1.55
1.01-1.06
0.98-1.35
0.78-2.83
1.16-1.78
1.67-2.80
0.61-0.91 
3.69-4.96
 
1.67
1.04
1.21
1.34
1.70
2.93
1.66
1.05
1.21
1.35
1.69
2.89
0.70
1.32
1.03
1.15
1.49
1.44
2.16
0.74
4.28
 
0.000
0.001
0.037
0.012
0.346
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.043
0.014
0.334
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.018
0.158
0.090
0.225
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.000
B [95% CI]
Good (vs poor) psychological well-being
OR p
Table 3. Results of the hierarchical binary logistic regression models predicting good psychological well-being. 
Notes: Ref – Reference category; *** – p=0.000; χ2 – Chi square statistic; df – Degrees of freedom; B – Unstandardised beta; CI – 
Confidence interval, OR – Odds ratio
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
106
characteristics, presence of a chronic condition, resilience 
and psychological well-being. 
In our study 52% students reported good psychological 
well-being (WHO>50), which is a little lower compared to 
the data from the Slovenian survey, where the prevalence 
of good well-being among young adults (aged 18-29 years) 
was 54.2% and 56.6% among the general population 
(18). However, in our study the students’ self-reported 
prevalence of psychological well-being is better than that 
observed in some other studies carried out abroad, where 
the prevalence of good psychological well-being among 
students was reported to range from 27.8% to 34.7% (15-17). 
Even before the pandemic, the students exhibited poorer 
mental health in comparison to the general population 
(4), and recent reports show that the COVID-19 pandemic 
seemed to have worsened the situation (10-12). Moreover, 
a study from Slovenia (39) found that the prevalence of 
flourishing mental health among students was lower 
during the COVID-19 pandemic (28.5%) as compared to 
before the pandemic (54.0%).
According to results from the WHO-5 (when considered as 
a screening measure for depression), for the 48% students 
in our study who reported poor psychological well-
being (scores <=50), further screening for mental health 
problems (especially depression) would be beneficial.
Our findings regarding the prevalence of depressive 
symptoms are in line with another similar study conducted 
in Slovenia, which found that 55% of students had moderate 
to severe symptoms of depression (19). However, in 
another study conducted on young adults (20 to 40 years 
of age) in Slovenia (22) the reported prevalence was lower, 
namely 26% at baseline and 23% at three-month follow-up. 
Our study revealed that male, older students, those with 
higher perceived subjective social status, and students 
without a chronic health condition were more likely to 
have good psychological well-being, which is in line with 
the findings of other studies (16, 18, 40). However, some 
authors did not find age, gender or education level to be 
important predictors of well-being (15). Regarding the 
latter, in our study education (regardless of the level) 
was also not a significant predictor of psychological well-
being once resilience and presence of a chronic condition 
were added to the model. Interestingly, the subcategory 
of being a PhD student was not an important predictor 
of psychological well-being, no matter whether resilience 
and presence of a chronic health condition were included 
in the model or not.  This may be due to the specific 
life and study conditions of PhD students (e.g. PhD studies 
are not organised in an everyday classroom setting, and 
hence do not represent such an important opportunity for 
socialising, and many PhD students work full or part time 
during their studies), as well as the specific characteristics 
of our sample, where PhD students represented only a 
very small subgroup. 
Of all the included variables, resilience was found to be 
the strongest predictor of psychological well-being in 
our study. Individuals with higher resilience were more 
likely to have higher levels of psychological well-being. 
Other studies also reported the important protective 
role of resilience in response to natural disasters (e.g. 
Hurricane Katrina) (41, 42), as well as in more recent 
works on resilience and mental health challenges related 
to COVID-19 (26-29).
Our study has several practical implications. Given the 
high proportion of students with poor psychological well-
being, it would be worthwhile to implement systematic 
approaches/interventions to target subgroups of students. 
In particular, it would be important to develop and deliver 
programmes for enhancing resilience, which, as mentioned 
earlier, is a strong protective factor in times of adversity. 
Furthermore, resilience can be viewed as a modifiable trait 
(43, 44), and indeed a recent meta-analysis supported the 
use of resilience interventions as a universal prevention 
strategy among students (45). Since the literature suggests 
that two thirds of students with mental health problems 
usually do not seek help (4-6), it is crucial that in the future 
much more focus is put on the intention to look for such 
support. This can be pursued via different destigmatizing 
programmes as well as enhancing mental health literacy 
(46-47). It is only when students are able to recognise 
mental health issues and are taught about effective ways 
to alleviate and manage them that they can take an active 
part in solving their own problems or seek help from a 
mental health expert. With regard to seeking help, it is 
essential to ensure better access to licensed mental health 
professionals, and in Slovenia the critical shortage of 
accredited sources of such help is still unresolved, resulting 
in very long waiting lists for treatment. 
Our study has a few limitations that are worth mentioning, 
mostly related to the sampling procedure. Despite asking 
all Slovenian faculties to forward invitations to participate 
to all their students, we had no control as to whether such 
invitations were indeed sent to all students, and given the 
low response rate (4.8%) we have reasons to believe that 
this was not the case. The sample was also largely female 
(70%) and unweighted, which limits generalisability. The 
scores were dichotomised, which can result in losing 
some nuances. Another limitation is the cross-sectional 
nature of the study, which prevents establishing a causal 
link between resilience and psychological well-being. 
Therefore, future research should be longitudinal in 
nature and explore possible mediating factors between 
resilience (viewed as a multidimensional construct) and 
psychological well-being. 
Despite these mentioned limitations, our study 
nevertheless offers important targets for implementation 
of intervention strategies, as promoting the ability to 
cope with varying stressors can be adaptive and translate 
across different contexts. 
5 CONCLUSIONS
In 2020 the world was hit by a pandemic, and while every 
domain of daily living was impacted, individual factors may 
have played differential roles in each person’s adaptation 
and coping abilities. Most of the existing research 
(including the work on Slovenian student populations) has 
focused on the negative consequences of the pandemic. 
However, our study managed to explore a broader aspect, 
the psychological well-being of university students and the 
protective role of resilience in a novel sample, over a very 
specific period of time. This is important, as resilience 
can be protective of one’s mental health during acute 
distress, and may also help reduce the burden of other 
instances of mental distress across one’s lifespan.  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The authors wish to thank the study participants for their 
contribution to the research.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
FUNDING
The study presented in this article is part of the project 
“Raising Health Literacy in Slovenia”, implemented by 
the National Institute of Public Health and the Ministry 
of Health within the Operational Programme for the 
Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in the 2014–2020 
programming period. The project is co-financed by the 
European Union from the European Social Fund (80%) and 
the Republic of Slovenia (20%). 
ETHICAL APPROVAL
The research was conducted in accordance with Slovenian 
legislation and with the ethical permission of the 
Commission of National Institute of Public Health (Decision 
number 631-99/2019-11 (241).
REFERENCES
1. Twenge JM, Cooper AB, Joiner TE, Duffy ME, Binau, SG. Age, period, 
and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related 
outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005-2017. J Abnorm 
Psychol. 2019;128 Suppl 3:185-199. doi: 10.1037/abn0000410.
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual 
of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric 
Association; 2013.  
3. Browne V, Munro J, Cass J. Under the radar:  The mental health of 
Australian university students. JANZSSA. 2017;25 Suppl 2:51-62. doi: 
10.30688/janzssa.2017.16. 
4. Stallman, HM. Psychological distress in university students: A 
comparison with general population data. Aust Psychol. 2010; 45 
Suppl 4:249-257. doi: 10.1080/00050067.2010.482109.
5. Dyrbye LN, Eacker A, Durning SJ, Brazeau C, Moutier C, Massie FS, et 
al. The impact of stigma and personal experiences on the help-seeking 
behaviors of medical students with burnout. Acad Med. 2015;90 Suppl 
7:961-969. doi: 10.1097/acm.0000000000000655.  
6. Gebreegziabher Y, Girma E, Tesfaye M. Help-seeking behavior of 
Jimma university students with common mental disorders: A cross-
sectional study. PLoS One. 2019;14 Suppl 2:1-18. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0212657.  
7. Aiyer A, Surani S, Gill Y, Iyer R, Surani Z. Mental health impact of 
COVID-19 on students in the USA: A cross-sectional web-based 
survey. J Depress Anxiety. 2020;9 Suppl 5:375. doi: 10.35248/2167-
1044.20.9.375.      
8. Sundarasen S, Chinna K, Kamaludin K, Nurunnabi M, Baloch GM, 
Khoshaim, et al. Psychological impact of COVID-19 and lockdown 
among university students in Malaysia: Implications and policy 
recommendations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17 Suppl 
17:6206. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176206. 
9. Šorgo A, Crnkovič N, Gabrovec B, Cesar K, Selak Š. Influence of forced 
online distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic on the 
perceived stress of postsecondary students: Cross-sectional study. J 
Med Internet Res. 2022;24 Suppl 3:e30778. doi: 10.2196/30778. 
10. Essadek A, Rabeyron T. Mental health of French students during the 
COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:392-393. doi: 10.1016/j.
jad.2020.08.042.
11. Khan AH, Sultana MS, Hossain S, Hasan MT, Ahmed HU, Sikder MT. The 
impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health & wellbeing among 
home-quarantined Bangladeshi students: A cross-sectional pilot study. 
J Affect Disord. 2020;277:121-128. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.135. 
12. Savage MJ, James R, Magistro D, Donaldson J, Healy LC, Nevill M, 
et al. Mental health and movement behaviour during the COVID-19 
pandemic in UK university students: Prospective cohort study. Ment 
Health Phys Ac. 2020;19:1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2020.100357. 
13. McDowell I. Measures of self-perceived well-being. J Psychosom Res. 
2010;69 Suppl 1:69-79. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.07.002.
14. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 Well-Being 
Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 
2015;84 Suppl 3:167-176. doi: 10.1159/000376585.
15. Liu C, McCabe M, Dawson A, Cyrzon C, Shankar S, Gerges N, et al. 
Identifying predictors of university students’ wellbeing during the 
COVID-19 pandemic - a data-driven approach. Int J Environ Res Public 
Health. 2021;18 Suppl 13:6730. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136730. 
16. Dodd RH, Dadaczynski K, Okan O, McCaffery KJ, Pickles K. Psychological 
wellbeing and academic experience of university students in Australia 
during COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18 Suppl 3:866. 
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18030866. 
17. Holm-Hadulla RM, Klimov M, Juche T, Möltner A, Herpertz SC. Well-
being and mental health of students during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Psychopathology. 2021;54(6):291-297. doi: 10.1159/000519366. 
18. Hočevar Grom A. Pandemija COVID-19 v Sloveniji: 18. val. Ljubljana: 
Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje; 2021.
19. Selak Š, Crnkovič N, Šorgo A, Cesar K, Gabrovec B. Depression and 
anxiety symptoms among Slovenian tertiary students during COVID-19 
pandemic. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31 Suppl 3. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/
ckab165.579.
20. Vitale E, Moretti B, Noternicola A, Covelli I. How the Italian nursing 
students deal the pandemic COVID-19 condition. Acta Biomed. 2020;91 
Suppl 12:e2020007. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i12-S.9860. 
21. Mulyadi M, Tonapa SI, Luneto S, Lin WT, Lee BO. Prevalence of mental 
health problems and sleep disturbances in nursing students during the 
COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse 
Educ Pract. 2021;57:103228. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103228. 
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
107
22. Benatov J, Ochnik D, Rogowska AM, Arzenšek A, Bitenc U.  Prevalence 
and sociodemographic predictors of mental health in a representative 
sample of young adults from Germany, Israel, Poland, and Slovenia: 
A longitudinal study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res 
Public Health. 2022;19 Suppl 3:1334. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031334. 
23. Rasheed N, Fatima I, Tariq O. University students’ mental well-
being during COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of resilience 
between meaning in life and mental well-being. Acta Psychol (Amst). 
2022;227:103618. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103618. 
24. Chow KM, Tang WKF, Chan WHC, Sit WHJ, Choi KC, Chan S. Resilience 
and well-being of university nursing students in Hong Kong: A cross-
sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18 Suppl 1:13. doi: 10.1186/
s12909-018-1119-0.
25. American Psychological Association. Building your resilience 
[Internet]. Washington; 2020 [cited 2023 Jan 10]. Available from: 
https://www.apa.org/topics/resilience/building-your-resilience
26. Kavčič T, Avsec A, Zager Kocjan G. Psychological functioning of 
slovene adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does resilience matter? 
Psychiatr Q. 2021;92 Suppl 1:207-216. doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09789-
4.
27. Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT. Risk and resilience in family well-being 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol. 2020;75 Suppl 5:631-43. 
doi: 10.1037/amp0000660. 
28. Gabrovec B, Selak Š, Crnkovič N, Cesar K, Šorgo A. Perceived 
satisfaction with online study during COVID-19 lockdown correlates 
positively with resilience and negatively with anxiety, depression, 
and stress among Slovenian postsecondary students. Int J Environ Res 
Public Health. 2022;19 Suppl 12:7024. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19127024. 
29. Havnen A, Anyan F, Hjemdal O, Solem S, Gurigard Riksfjord M, Hagen 
K. Resilience moderates negative outcome from stress during the 
COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated-mediation approach. Int J Environ 
Res Public Health. 2020;17 Suppl 18:6461. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186461. 
30. Covid HL Network [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 20]. Available from: 
https://covid-hl.eu/
31. 1KA Enklikanketa [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Mar 15]. Available from: 
https://www.1ka.si/d/sl
32. Government of the Republic of Slovenia – News [Internet]. Ljubljana; 
2022 [cited 2022 Mar 5]. Available from:  https://www.gov.si/en/
news/
33. Vrdelja M, Vrbovšek S, Klopčič V, Dadaczynski K, Okan O. Facing the 
growing COVID-19 infodemic: digital health literacy and information-
seeking behaviour of university students in Slovenia. Int J Environ Res 
Public Health. 2021;18 Suppl 16:8507. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168507. 
34. Hoebel J, Müters S, Kuntz B, Lange C, Lampert T. Messung des 
subjektiven sozialen status in der gesundheitsforschung mit einer 
deutschen version der MacArthur Scale. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, 
Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz. 2015;58 Suppl 7:749-757. 
doi: 10.1007/s00103-015-2166-x.
35. MacArthur scale of subjective social status – adult version [Internet]. 
2018 [cited 2022 Mar 1]. Available from: https://sparqtools.org/
mobility-measure/macarthur-scale-of-subjective-social-status-adult-
version/
36. Dadaczynski K, Okan O, Messer M, Leung A, Rosário R, Darlington 
E, et al. Digital health literacy and web-based information-seeking 
behaviors of university students in germany during the COVID-19 
pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23 
Suppl 1. doi: 10.2196/24097.
37. Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: The 
Connor-Davidson resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18 
Suppl 2:76-82. doi: 10.1002/da.10113.
38. Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of 
the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-
item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20 Suppl 6:1019-
1028. doi: 10.1002/jts.20271.
10.2478/sjph-2023-0014 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(2):101-108
108
39. Vinko M, Mikolič P, Roškar S, Jeriček Klanšček H. Positive mental 
health in Slovenia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front 
Public Health. 2022;10:963545. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.963545.
40. Quansah F, Ankomah F, Agormedah EK, Abieraba RSK, Srem-Sai M, 
Hagan JE Jr, et al. COVID-digital health literacy and subjective well-
being of students in Ghana: Mediation-moderation analyses. Health 
Sci Rep. 2022;5(6):e916. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.916.
41. Blackmon BJ, Lee J, Cochran DM, Kar B, Rehner TA, Baker AM. 
Adapting to life after hurricane Katrina and the deepwater horizon oil 
spill: An examination of psychological resilience and depression on the 
Mississippi gulf coast. Soc Work Public Health. 2017; 32 Suppl 1:65-76. 
doi: 10.1080/19371918.2016.1188746. 
42. Osofsky HJ, Osofsky JD, Hansel TC. Deepwater horizon oil spill: Mental 
health effects on residents in heavily affected areas. Disaster Med 
Public Health Prep. 2011;5 Suppl 4:280-286. doi: 10.1001/dmp.2011.85.
43. Johnson J, Simms-Ellis R, Janes G, Mills T, Budworth L, Atkinson 
L, et al. Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students 
for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods 
evaluation of a resilience training intervention. BMC Health Serv Res. 
2020;20(1):1094. doi: org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2. 
44. Richards M, Dixon LB. Resilience. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71(8):878-879. 
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.71804. 
45. Ang WHD, Lau ST, Cheng LJ, Chew HSJ, Tan, JH, Shorey, S, et al. 
Effectiveness of resilience interventions for higher education 
students: A meta-analysis and metaregression. J Educ Psychol. 2022; 
114 Suppl 7,1670-1694. doi: 10.1037/edu0000719.
46. Chow, GM, Bird, MD, Gabana, NT, Cooper, BT, Becker, MAS. A program 
to reduce stigma toward mental illness and promote mental health 
literacy and help-seeking in National Collegiate Athletic Association 
Division I student-athletes. J Clin Sport Psychol, 2021;15Suppl 3:185–
205. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.2019-0104.
47. Jorm AF, Korten AE, Jacomb PA, Christensen H, Rodgers B, Pollitt P. 
Mental health literacy: A survey of the public’s ability to recognise 
mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of 
treatment. Med J Aust. 1997;166(4):182-186. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-
5377.1997.tb140071.x.