To the best of our knowledge, this is the first mixed-method study aimed at investigating the experience of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic, through the exploration of the association between their levels of resilience and their experience of the health emergency. At the conceptual level, resilience refers to a multidimensional, dynamic process allowing an individual to thrive and preserve well-being under adversarial conditions; it is therefore interesting to investigate it in association with subjective narratives during the first phase of the pandemic, especially in a country such as Italy which was massively hit by the disease outbreak. A strict national lockdown disrupted citizens’ daily routine, and the still limited knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical manifestation and treatment options generated deep uncertainty and distress in all sectors of the population. At the empirical level, findings were collected and compared across three demographically homogeneous groups of participants, and the adoption of a mixed-method approach gave participants the opportunity to freely describe their personal feelings, experiences, emotions, and thoughts regarding the health emergency.
4.1. Students’ Experience of the Pandemic Emergency
The qualitative information collected in this study shed light on the personal experiences of university students, contextualized into an extraordinary event such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Across disciplinary areas, the participants mainly focused on few topics and domains. Narratives concerning the collective dimensions of the emergency, grouped in the category community/society issues, were by far the most frequent ones, followed by considerations on the effects of the pandemic on academic activities and study schedule, and by personal life reflections and feelings. Across groups, less attention was paid to relational aspects involving family and friends, work, and emergency health management. These group similarities in answer pattern can be partly referred to the homogeneous demographic features of the participants; in addition, they shed light on some globally perceived consequences of the pandemic, at least among college students.
Researchers have highlighted that being a university student during the lockdown was a risk factor for experiencing loneliness (the feeling that one’s social needs are not quantitatively or qualitatively satisfied by one’s social relationships), and related negative implications [
45,
46,
47]. Active and adaptive coping strategies emerged as effective resources for counterbalancing loneliness and its consequences [
48,
49]. Other studies conducted during the pandemic suggested that at the relational level social distancing [
50] may induce supportive coping mechanisms [
23]. The increased use of internet and social media taking place during the lockdown emerged as the most common proactive coping strategy adopted by students, in the effort to find alternative solutions for preserving interpersonal relationships [
33,
48,
49,
51,
52]. Notably, participants in the present study did not quote loneliness as a recurrent negative emotion, rather focusing in this category on feelings of uncertainty, as well as difficulties in setting and pursuing short- and long-term educational and personal plans. Overall, they showed adequate self-regulatory strategies, turning their thoughts to the community and to their own social engagement. Concerning the latter, it was mainly reported by Health Sciences students, who were often involved as volunteers in ambulance services and emergency call centres during the pandemic. Positive thoughts and emotions were reported by students across disciplinary areas, primarily referring to hope and to the perception of the pandemic-related situation as an opportunity for personal learning and growth; these answers again suggest that participants were able to adopt proactive coping strategies, based on the appraisal of the emergency condition as an opportunity rather than a threat.
The most relevant difference emerged in participants’ narratives concerned the category
study/university, mentioned by a significantly higher percentage of students in Humanities, who emphasized negative aspects such as inadequate organization of online activities and professors’ lack of attention and responsiveness to students’ requests and needs. Different concerns were raised by students in the Health Sciences domain, who were primarily worried about the interruption of their practical training in hospitals and outpatient services, and by the potential consequence of these restrictions on their academic and professional growth. Furthermore, they found ways to counterbalance the lack of practical training through volunteering in health services [
23,
53]. Consistent with our findings, previous studies have shown increased levels of psychological distress associated with students’ concerns about their academic activities [
22,
34], mainly due to potential delays in degree completion [
23], distance learning limitations [
51], and feelings of loneliness due to forced physical distance [
25].
4.2. Resilience Levels and Students’ Experience
Participants in this study reported overall moderate to high levels of resilience. Students in the Health Sciences however reported higher mean resilience values than participants in the other two groups, with a significant difference emerging in the comparison with students in Humanities. In addition, they showed high resilience levels in higher percentage than the other groups. Previous studies highlighted that students from the Health Sciences had a more appropriate judgement and knowledge of the COVID-19 emergency [
34,
45,
46], focusing their thoughts more on the disease itself than on the daily life consequences of the pandemic [
35] and identifying themselves with their future professional role [
54]. Possessing a more targeted knowledge to better interpret the health emergency and being directly involved as primary present or future actors in the pandemic management may play a role in fostering positive coping strategies and thus increasing resilience levels [
47]. Gallé et al. also observed that a good level of knowledge about COVID-19 and its control (e.g., the use of masks and social distancing) may have been a protective factor during the first phase of the pandemic [
33]. In apparent contrast, another study conducted in Italy during the first months of the emergency detected lower resilience levels among health professionals, compared to the general population [
6]. Notably, however, resilience was negatively related to unexpected workload, awareness of the exposure to contagion in the absence of adequate personal protective equipment, and fear for infecting family members [
6].
Another factor supporting resilience in our participants may be related to their living conditions. Although previous evidence was obtained about the positive association between pandemic-related isolation and affective disorders [
55]; most of the participants involved in the present study were emerging adults still living with their parents and siblings. Evidence from other research supports this interpretation, showing that living in urban areas and cohabiting with parents represent protective factors against negative psychological consequences due to the COVID-19 pandemic [
23]. As concerns the relationship between students’ resilience level and mention of specific categories in their narratives, only one association was detected: students with moderate levels of resilience were more likely to focus on
study/university than students with high resilience levels, specifically highlighting problematic aspects in this domain. As documented in several studies, for university students, a major challenge during the pandemic was the change in learning mode [
23,
34,
51]; not surprisingly, in the present study, related problems were perceived to a greater extent by less resilient participants. This finding is in line with studies that identify resilience as a psychological resource that develops through adversity [
7,
17,
56,
57]. While some of the students in our sample reported concerns and disappointment for the limitations imposed by remote academic activities, others emphasized the positive aspects of distance learning, such as the opportunity to manage their learning schedule more flexibly, the university’s positive role as a normalizing factor in times of uncertainty, and the discovery of the overall potential of distance learning.
Overall, the results of the present study confirm and extend previous research, by highlighting the interplay between resilience and adaptive coping strategies, as well as by identifying through participants’ direct narratives the intrapersonal and interpersonal protective factors mitigating the negative psychological consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak [
58,
59,
60,
61]. More specifically, highly resilient students seemed to adopt more adaptive coping strategies, such as identifying positive aspects in a negative condition, a reappraisal strategy defined as benefit finding [
62].
The knowledge obtained from these findings, together with evidence derived from the increasingly vast literature on students’ experience during the pandemic, could be useful in developing more targeted support and intervention programs aimed at counterbalancing the long-term implications of the pandemic on mental health and educational careers of university students. In addition, the joint investigation of qualitative and quantitative variables provides a better understanding of the participants’ experience, and it allows for tailoring interventions according to individuals’ or groups’ needs.
Regarding mental health, as evidenced by the overall moderate to high levels of resilience, participants were aware of both the challenges posed by the pandemic, and their potential to adapt to them responsibly and proactively. These results shed light on the relevance of paying attention to the evaluation of personal and environmental resources beyond investigating pathological symptoms; researchers’ attention to individual and collective strengths can shed a more comprehensive light on the experience and self-perception of college students under ordinary and extraordinary circumstances. At the clinical level, the effectiveness of interventions can be enhanced by a careful assessment of available personal resources and areas of optimal functioning, which can thus be more effectively valued and mobilized.
Regarding educational careers, the qualitative results of the study revealed that college-based interventions should take into account the specific needs of students, according to their disciplinary area. The present study showed that the main concerns reported by Health Science students referred to the interruption of face-to-face clinical trainings, and the difficulties related to learning about applied and clinical subjects online. These findings also suggest that, even after the easing of restrictions and the retrieval of in-person activities, a variety of virtual tools and contents could be implemented and successfully incorporated in clinical internships, in line with the evolution of health care, allowing students to personalize their learning pathways and acquire new technological skills flexibly. Participants attending Political Sciences and Humanities courses were instead primarily concerned about their future academic and employment opportunities. For this reason, at least in the Italian context, the undergraduate education programs offered to these students should be implemented by including subjects related to employment negotiation and regulations, labour market opportunities, specialized job-oriented trainings, as well as a broader range of practical workshops.
4.3. Strengths and Limitations
The present study has strengths and limitations that should be acknowledged. As concerns strengths, it provides novel evidence of the associations between resilience and students’ experience of the first pandemic lockdown, using a mixed-method approach which allowed for gathering in-depth information of the participants’ perceived benefits and shortcomings of the situation, as well as their psychological resources. Moreover, a large sample of participants attending courses in three different disciplinary areas was involved; differences in the understanding and personal narratives of the pandemic could emerge across the curricula.
Despite these strengths, the findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution. The cross-sectional nature of the data precludes conclusions about causality. In addition, most of the participants were females; it is thus possible that the results reflect a polarization towards women’s experiences. The possibility of a self-selection bias in participation, based on personal interest and internet access/availability of online resources, should also be considered. Moreover, the study was conducted during the first outbreak of the pandemic, a peculiar phase of worldwide uncertainty and perceived vulnerability in all sectors of the society. For that reason, interpretations and applications of the findings should be carefully contextualized.