Student mental health has become a pressing issue at universities worldwide, prompting critical debate over how much responsibility higher education institutions should bear for their students’ psychological wellbeing. Recent research, high-profile court cases, and unprecedented demand for support services are driving reforms both abroad and in Thailand—yet students, parents, and experts alike continue to wrestle with what “duty of care” means in practice and how it can be sustainably achieved.
In a revealing BBC analysis published on July 24, 2025, students shared accounts of being let down by campus mental health resources across UK universities. Imogen, arriving at the University of Nottingham with a diagnosed history of anxiety and self-harm, felt further adrift after referring herself for counseling. “I felt like I was being thrown between services, no-one wanted me and no-one could help me,” she recounted. Another student described the “one-size-fits-all” nature of support, sometimes reduced to mere website links rather than actionable assistance.
The struggle is not unique to the UK. Across the globe—including Thailand—university students are facing heightened psychological pressures as mental health awareness rises, youth report greater distress, and academic and social transitions become more fraught following the Covid-19 pandemic. With institutions pouring resources into wellbeing programs even as budgets tighten, the question remains: Should universities be centers of mental health intervention, or merely signposts to outside clinical help?
The stakes are high. Student suicides at the University of Bristol in 2018, and subsequent legal action from bereaved families, have shifted the conversation beyond counseling access to a fundamental reassessment of institutional obligations. In the decade up to 2024, students in the UK with reported mental health conditions nearly quadrupled, with most affected in the critical 18–21 age range—precisely when many first enter university life. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, 122,430 students (of roughly 2.9 million) reported a mental health condition in the UK last year—a trend echoed in studies from Thailand, where research found between 17% and 40% of university students experience depression or distress (PMC12001934, SAGE Journals).
This situation is highly relevant for Thai readers, as the structure of mental health and support systems across Thai universities is facing similar pressures. In Thailand, qualitative and quantitative studies demonstrate high levels of anxiety and depression among university students, exacerbated by academic demands, transitions away from home, and—recently—the destabilizing effects of prolonged online learning during the pandemic (JPSS, BriefLands). Thai cultural norms around family support and respect for hierarchy also influence help-seeking behavior, sometimes prompting students to avoid discussing psychological difficulties with university staff, fearing stigma or loss of face. Many rely on informal channels—a pattern compounded by inadequate on-campus services at some institutions. However, as Thai society becomes more open about mental health, universities are increasingly called upon to provide frontline support and referrals.
Internationally, the surge in demand for support services is not being matched by available resources. In the UK, for example, universities’ spending on wellbeing grew by 73% over five years, even as nearly half anticipated operating deficits (BBC News). In the US, only one-third of college students actually access on-campus counseling, despite nearly half reporting psychological distress (Inside Higher Ed). Innovative peer-support models and scalable online services are being tested to fill these gaps, though their effectiveness and reach vary. Experts caution that without proper resourcing and careful system design, students can too easily “slip through the gaps”—a concern echoed in Thai universities, where rapid expansion of counseling centers sometimes outpaces quality or accessibility (SAGE Journals).
The pandemic’s legacy looms large. Students entering university after extended lockdowns often display social development lags, with higher rates of isolation and difficulty adapting to independent living. Sally Lambah, head of student support at Wrexham University in the UK, observed that recent cohorts had their “social development skills…stifled because they had to stay at home.” The same pattern is visible in Thailand, where academic performance, social anxiety, and emotional regulation have been observed to decline among post-pandemic cohorts (PMC11196123). As universities scramble to adapt, the role of personal tutors (usually academic staff, not mental health specialists) has come under scrutiny; in both Thailand and the UK, staff report insufficient training and resources to respond to crises—a structural problem that leaves all parties vulnerable.
Notably, the “duty of care” debate is intensifying. Parents of students who died by suicide, including those of Natasha Abrahart in the UK, have campaigned for statutory legal obligations, arguing that universities must create safer, more supportive environments. Some educators and organizations like Amosshe (a student support association) resist this, warning of “unrealistic expectations” given the limits of what universities can control. Recent legal cases, including a £50,000 judgment against the University of Bristol for breaching the Equality Act in failing to make reasonable adjustments for a student with social anxiety, are shifting the legal and policy landscape.
Experts differ on where the line should be drawn. Some, like Dr. Sandi Mann of the University of Central Lancashire, argue for a focus on resilience and practical life skills—not minimizing serious illness, but providing “scaffolding” to help students cope with ordinary stresses, as university life marks a key transition to adulthood. Others urge more robust partnerships between universities, public health authorities, and community providers, recognizing that higher education alone cannot replace comprehensive clinical care.
In Thailand, these discussions are gaining traction amid evidence that many students feel overwhelmed by both academic and social pressures. According to researchers at several Thai universities, cross-institutional collaboration and national policy guidelines are needed to standardize support systems, reduce barriers to help-seeking, and align with global good practices. Some campuses have initiated partnerships with local health providers, offering expedited pathways to clinical care for severe cases—an approach similar to the Greater Manchester Universities Mental Health Service model in the UK (BBC News). Yet implementation remains uneven, with resource disparities between public and private institutions and little consistency in how services are delivered.
Cultural factors also play a unique role in Thailand. Traditionally, Thai students may seek support more from family or monks rather than formal counseling services, particularly in rural areas. While universities in Bangkok and major cities have begun to normalize mental health education, significant stigma persists. Increasing mental health literacy, as well as integrating peer support groups and culturally sensitive approaches, are priorities identified in recent Thai research (BriefLands, SAGE Journals).
Actionable recommendations for Thai universities, students, and families are emerging from both local and international research:
- Invest in and expand evidence-based student wellbeing programs, integrating digital platforms and peer-led initiatives to reach wider audiences.
- Enhance training for academic staff and designated support personnel so they can effectively identify warning signs and respond without overstepping their expertise.
- Establish clear, accessible referral pathways for clinical care—especially for students displaying severe symptoms—to ensure timely intervention and prevent “slipping through the cracks.”
- Build stronger partnerships between universities, public health agencies, families, and community resources to create a comprehensive “net” of support.
- Promote mental health literacy and reduce stigma through regular workshops, well-designed educational campaigns, and integration of mental health awareness into student orientation programs, especially in settings where cultural attitudes inhibit help-seeking.
- Regularly evaluate system effectiveness and actively seek student feedback to adapt resources to changing needs and real world outcomes.
For families and students in Thailand, awareness and early intervention remain critical. Recognizing the signs of distress, supporting friends and loved ones in seeking appropriate help, and using available on- and off-campus resources can all make meaningful differences. Parents and educators should encourage open conversations and reinforce the message that seeking assistance for mental health struggles is a sign of strength, not weakness.
The ultimate goal for Thai universities—and universities everywhere—is to balance the promotion of independent adulthood with responsible support. As societies change, expectations will continue to evolve, but ensuring student safety, wellbeing, and success remains a collective—and urgent—priority.
For more information, readers can consult resources such as the Thai Mental Health Department (กรมสุขภาพจิต), on-campus counseling centers, and international organizations like WHO’s Mental Health Programme and The Jed Foundation (ecampusnews.com).