What if the biggest difference between public and private universities is not anxiety, but depression? In this Nigerian comparison, depression was notably more common in the private institution, while anxiety looked almost identical. Undergraduate education is an important phase during which students expand their knowledge and develop the critical thinking and professional skills required for their future careers.

However, academic workload, financial demands, social adjustment and uncertainty about future employment may negatively affect students’ psychological well-being. Persistent exposure to such pressures may contribute to psychological symptoms, including depression, anxiety and stress.

These psychological symptoms can affect academic performance, interpersonal relationships, physical health and overall quality of life. The burden of these psychological symptoms among university students remains considerable.

Globally, a systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms among college students at 33.6% and 39.0%, respectively. In Nigeria, a multi-institutional study among undergraduate pharmacy students reported depression, anxiety and stress symptoms among 44.6%, 63.5% and 35.0% of respondents, respectively.

In Osun State, mental distress was reported among 40.4% of students in a public university and 43.6% in a private university, although the difference was not statistically significant. These findings indicate that the occurrence and severity of psychological symptoms may vary according to the population, measurement method and institutional setting examined.

The institutional environment may shape students’ academic and psychological experiences. Public and private universities operate under different ownership, funding and administrative arrangements, although students within the same state share a broader geographical and sociocultural environment.

The University of Ilesa is a state-owned university, while Redeemer’s University is privately owned. Comparing students from these contrasting settings within Osun State may provide a clearer understanding of institution-specific differences while reducing the influence of wider geographical and cultural variations.

Previous Nigerian studies have examined depression, anxiety and stress among students in particular disciplines or individual institutions. A previous comparative study in Osun State assessed general mental distress and help-seeking behaviour among students in a public and a private university.

However, general mental distress does not show how the severity of depression, anxiety and stress may differ independently. The present study addresses this gap by separately assessing depression, anxiety and stress symptoms among undergraduates in a selected public university and private university within the same state.

Applying the same measurement and analytical procedures across both institutions provides context-specific evidence on psychological symptoms, coping strategies and associated factors. The study aimed to compare depression, anxiety and stress symptoms and examine their relationships with coping, sociodemographic and academic factors among undergraduate students in Osun State, Nigeria.

Specifically, the study sought to compare symptom levels, examine relationships between coping strategies and symptoms, and identify sociodemographic and academic factors associated with moderate-to-extremely severe symptoms. This study adopted a comparative cross-sectional design to assess depression, anxiety, stress and coping strategies among undergraduate students at the University of Ilesa and Redeemer’s University, Ede, Osun State, Nigeria.

The University of Ilesa is a state-owned university, while Redeemer’s University is privately owned. The two universities were purposively selected because they represent different ownership structures and are located in different senatorial districts of Osun State.

However, the inclusion of only one public and one private university limits the generalisability of the findings to other universities in Osun State and Nigeria. The study population comprised all registered undergraduate students at the University of Ilesa and Redeemer’s University during the study period.

The University of Ilesa had 5,088 undergraduate students, while Redeemer’s University had 6,151, giving a total study population of 11,239 students. The sample size was determined using Taro Yamane’s formula. The target sample consisted of 387 undergraduate students.

Proportional allocation resulted in 175 students from the public institution and 212 from the private institution. The original sample-size calculation was intended for the overall survey and was not an a priori power calculation for the institutional comparison.

At the second stage, four faculties were selected from each university through simple random sampling. Nursing, Sciences, Computing and Arts were selected from the University of Ilesa, while Basic Medical Sciences, Education, Management Sciences and Humanities were selected from Redeemer’s University.

At the final stage, eligible students were selected from the respective faculties using simple random sampling from class lists. Following questionnaire administration and data screening, 65 incomplete or damaged questionnaires were excluded, leaving 322 questionnaires for analysis.

The overall response rate is 83.2%. Only 161 questionnaires from each institution met the predefined eligibility and completeness criteria and were retained for analysis. No questionnaire was excluded solely to achieve equal group sizes. The DASS-21 was used to assess symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress.

The instrument contains 21 items divided equally among the depression, anxiety and stress subscales. Each item is rated on a four-point scale ranging from zero, did not apply to me at all, to three, applied to me very much or most of the time.

The DASS-21 measures symptom severity and was not used as a clinical diagnostic instrument. An adapted 15-item version of the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced, or Brief COPE, was used to assess the coping responses adopted by the students.

The original Brief COPE comprises 28 items distributed across 14 coping dimensions. Shortened 15-item versions have been applied in previous studies involving university students and other populations. The DASS-21 subscales showed good internal consistency.

Reliability was satisfactory for most coping dimensions, while the four-item Denial and Self-Critical Disengagement dimension showed comparatively lower but acceptable internal consistency for an exploratory short scale. The 15 coping items were subjected to principal axis factoring with Direct Oblimin rotation.

Four factors were retained and accounted for 51.86% of the variance. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Categorical variables were summarised using frequencies and percentages, while continuous DASS-21 and coping scores were described using mean and standard deviation, median and interquartile range, and skewness where relevant.

Cramér’s V was reported as an effect-size measure. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to examine relationships between the four coping dimensions and the continuous depression, anxiety and stress scores separately within each institution because the score distributions showed departures from normality.

Twelve coping-outcome correlations were tested within each institution; therefore, Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction was applied separately to the public and private institutional analyses. Pooled binary logistic regression was used to examine the adjusted association between institution type and moderate-or-higher depression, anxiety and stress.

For depression and anxiety, the models adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, previous course failure and satisfaction with academic performance. Variables with very small category frequencies were not included to minimise sparse-data bias.

Because only 47 participants had moderate-or-higher stress, the stress model was restricted to institution, sex and academic satisfaction to reduce overfitting. The private institution recorded higher mean depression and stress scores than the public institution.

Mean depression scores were 11.03 plus or minus 9.51 in the private institution and 7.37 plus or minus 7.18 in the public institution. Anxiety scores were more similar across the institutions, with means of 11.57 plus or minus 9.35 in the private institution and 10.87 plus or minus 8.30 in the public institution.

Looking down the coping rows, the mean column shows a public-institution advantage of zero point three one for Active/Engagement-Oriented Coping and zero point three four for Support-Seeking Coping. In contrast, the maladaptive-disengagement row is nearly identical across institutions, while its skewness values—two point five eight zero and two point one five four—signal strong concentration toward low scores.

The distribution of depression severity differed significantly between the two institutions, with a small-to-moderate effect size. Normal depression levels were more common in the public institution, at 66.5%, than in the private institution, at 42.9%. Moderate-to-extremely severe depression was more frequent in the private institution.

In the public institution, Active or Engagement-Oriented Coping was positively associated with anxiety and stress, but not with depression. Denial and Self-Critical Disengagement Coping was positively associated with depression, anxiety and stress.

Maladaptive Disengagement and Support-Seeking Coping were not significantly associated with the DASS-21 outcomes after multiplicity correction. Binary logistic regression was conducted to identify factors associated with moderate-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety and stress symptoms, with normal or mild symptoms serving as the reference outcome.

Among students in the public institution, dissatisfaction with academic performance was associated with higher odds of moderate-to-extremely severe depression symptoms than satisfaction with academic performance, with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.72 and a 95% confidence interval from 1.72 to 12.92.

The coping-strategy variable was also associated with depression symptoms, with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.70 and a 95% confidence interval from 2.60 to 17.28. Age, gender, religion, history of course failure and drug use were not associated with depression symptoms.

Table ten reports pooled logistic regression results for moderate-or-higher depression, anxiety, and stress, using adjusted odds ratios and ninety-five percent confidence intervals. Academic dissatisfaction was associated with depression, with an adjusted odds ratio of three point six eight and a p-value below zero point zero zero one; it was also associated with anxiety at one point seven five, with a p-value of zero point zero two five.

The stress model was narrower because of fewer events, and institution was associated with stress at two point zero eight, with a p-value of zero point zero three three. Depression, anxiety and stress symptoms were common among undergraduate students in both the public and private institutions, although their severity and associated factors differed across the two settings.

Severe or extremely severe depression symptoms were more frequently reported in the private institution, while severe or extremely severe anxiety symptoms occurred at comparable levels in both institutions. Coping-strategy scores were positively associated with depression, anxiety and stress scores, indicating that students experiencing greater psychological distress also reported greater use of coping responses.

Academic dissatisfaction, drug use for reading, age and previous course failure were associated with selected psychological outcomes. Because the study was cross-sectional, the findings indicate associations and do not establish causal relationships. The clearest institutional difference was depression, but coping patterns and academic experiences were linked with several symptoms.

Because the study was cross-sectional, these are associations—not proof that one factor caused another.