The population was n=50 public universities identified through the Spanish Government’s register of universities (RUCT). The distance learning Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) was excluded, as it does not offer in-person courses, as were Universidad Menéndez Pelayo and Universidad Internacional de Andalucía, because they do not offer degrees. The final population was n=47 Spanish public universities. The study did not include private universities because they have different characteristics (Klafke et al., 2020).

The sample was selected by cluster sampling. In the first stage, we contacted Guidance Services experts via email through the “Servicios de Información y Orientación de las universidades españolas” [Spanish University Information and Guidance Services] (SIOU) working group. This produced a sample of n=4 universities, resulting in a total of 6 interviews and 10 participants. In the second stage, we contacted remaining universities’ Vice-Rectorates for Students by e-mail. This produced a sample of n=22 universities, with a total of 28 interviews and 31 participants. That meant a total sample of 34 interviews, involving 41 experts from Guidance Services and diversity services/units/offices and equivalents (SSD), from n=26 Spanish public universities. Between one and five experts from each university participated.

The socio-demographic profile of the 41 participants by gender was 68% female and 32% male. Their experience ranged from 1 to 10 years (34%), 10 to 20 years (42%), 20 to 30 years (22%), and 30 to 40 years (2%). Their academic background by area was: educational psychology (54%), social and legal sciences (22%), humanities (17%), and other areas (7%). Finally, participants’ affiliations with the university were Technical, Management, Administration, and Services (71%), Teaching and Research (27%), and staff from outside the university (2%).

The following information was recorded in Excel: a) university, b) university acronyms; c) Guidance Services; d) expert data; and e) email address. This information was used to contact participants via email and request an interview, outlining the relevant aspects of interest:

1. 1. Individualized support interventions aimed at students.
2. 2. Individualized support interventions aimed at students with diverse needs. Interviews were conducted between January and July 2023. They lasted from 30 to 50 minutes and were conducted online. Three researchers with expertise in the topic conducted in interviews. To ensure validity and reliability, the criteria from Cohen et al. (2018) were considered: a) joint training of researchers in initial interviews; b) consistent follow-up of the interview process and sequence; and c) audio recording and note-taking for subsequent transcription.

The interviews were conducted in two phases. In the first phase, six interviews were conducted with experts in university guidance belonging to Guidance Services to obtain an overview of the topic of interest. This stage helped outline the central theme of the interviews: individualized guidance. In the second phase, 28 experts were interviewed. Five of the 34 interviews were group interviews, while 29 were individual interviews. Group interviews were conducted when the service had more than one expert on the topic to be discussed.

Data was collected using the semi-structured interview technique. The interview script was created in three stages. The first stage involved reviewing official reports, legislation, and scientific articles to narrow down the topic. Based on that documentation, in the second stage, the needs were identified and the interview script was developed. In the third stage, the interview script was reviewed by two experts to ensure its suitability. Based on their recommendations, we refined and clarified the questions in the initial script, especially those related to students with diverse needs. Consequently, the initial script was restructured, and the initial 19 topics in five blocks was reduced to six topics in four blocks (Table 1). The interview questions were organized starting with general topics and gradually introducing more specific issues (Cohen et al., 2018). The aim of the interviews was to gather information on individual support interventions for all students, specifically those aimed at students with diverse needs.

Table 1
Interview script

Block One, linked to student needs, was designed to introduce the topic of interest to the interviewees. Block two focused on personalized guidance. It was created following consultation of previous research that mentions a heterogeneous intake profile in universities, such as students with educational support needs or socio-educational disadvantages (Davis et al., 2021; Stanwood & Mittiga, 2022). In the present study, diversity was understood as any student profile requiring specific attention tailored to the individual’s temporary or permanent needs, adhering to the principles of inclusion in current legislation (LOSU, 2023). Within this diversity, there are also profiles of students starting university with a pre-existing diagnosis, such as dyslexia or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Block Three focused on technological resources for guidance. It was created with reference to previous research to understand the resources implemented in Guidance Services (Clancey & Hoffman, 2021; Inglis & Cart, 2018; Suárez Lantarón et al., 2021). These resources were classified based on the resource-centric model and the relationship-centric model established by Watts (2001). The resource-centric model is linked to the characteristics and functions of technological resources to provide access to information, services, and tools for the guidance process (Watts, 2001). The relationship-centric model notes technological resources as facilitators of interaction among the parties involved in the guidance process (Watts, 2001).

Lastly, Block Four addresses future perspectives, tackling aspects such as the needs from different Guidance Services to improve personalized attention interventions and where guidance should be heading to promote student success.

MAXQDA 2022 software was used to analyse the interviews by creating categories and codes through content analysis. Categories were created based on the interview blocks, using a horizontal coding strategy—analysing the same question comprehensively across all interviews. This was done to maximise result homogeneity for each item. A total of 4 general categories and 685 codes were created, encoding a total of 3,493 segments (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Categories

After content analysis, the frequency of occurrence of the different codes was calculated.

From the Guidance Service, the students’ concerns or needs were presented according to their area of work, and the following types of students were mentioned a) pre-university students (n=16), b) first years (n=12); and c) student with diverse needs (n=25) (Table 3).:

Table 3
Student concerns

Firstly, the identified needs of pre-university students focus on three aspects 1) choice (n=9), primarily highlighting vocational choice (n=8) and career prospects (n=4); 2) administrative matters (n=9), related to pre-registration or enrolment; and: 3) access concerns (n=8), such as cut-off grades for specific degrees and enquiries about the university entrance exam.

Secondly, students in the first years of their courses have concerns that are more closely linked to aspects related to their degree program (n=7). There is notable concern about failure (n=6), understood as the fear of having chosen the wrong degree or having to change their degree course. This is generally associated with administrative aspects such as transferring academic records, meaning: “...they want to know if they make a mistake in choosing their course, what possibilities there are to change” (ID06).

Another concern is the functioning of the university (n=5), such as whether there are services to help find accommodation or how to access university services. Thirdly, the concerns of students requiring diverse support focus on the nature of their support at university (n=12), i.e., “...if they will be supported, if they will have guidance” (ID07); and academic questions (n=11) for example, about methodological adaptations such as “Attention in the classroom by teachers, how they will feel inside the classroom” (ID29), scholarships, and choice of courses. Other concerns detected by the support services include psychological needs (n=9), sometimes due to specific events, and integration needs (n=6) with their university peer group.

The interviewees mentioned Guidance Services’ individual attention activities aimed at all students (n=33) and specific actions for students requiring diversity support (n=33). All of them are voluntary in nature (Table 4).

Table 4
Individualized attention activity

Both tutorials and mentorships serve as general actions for all students. Tutorials (n=24) aim to provide personalized attention, with the level of teacher-tutor involvement being crucial. Some faculties offer specific tutorials for students requiring diverse support (n=5) with assigned tutors: “In some faculties, there is a specific tutor for students with specific educational needs or disabilities, who provides follow-up and acts as a mediator with the service” (ID28). Mentorships (n=21) are conducted by senior students to guide new students, with the implementation of this strategy varying between different parts of the university. Mentors receive training and guidance “...to apply it in their functions” (ID33), as well as support from the teacher-tutor, who may oversee “seven to eight mentor students” (ID29). Some universities have implemented specific mentorships for students requiring diverse support (n=12). In these cases, “The mentor can be a good role model to follow because they usually connect the new student with someone who has a similar profile to theirs” (ID23), which can have a positive impact on the new student’s self-concept.

There are also specific actions (n=33) to support students requiring diverse support. There are non-significant adaptations (n=24) to assist those with a diagnosis (n=31), such as visual impairment or ADHD, among others. These are proposed by SSD or by the psycho-pedagogical guidance service, considering reasonable personalised adjustments in the academic dimension based on student needs: “... someone with ADHD for teaching guidelines, Final Degree Project...” (ID17). The teaching staff play a crucial role as “...they are responsible for implementing these adaptations in the classroom” (ID15). Additionally, students requiring diverse support (n=14) are monitored by relevant Guidance Services, such as the SSD, and by the teacher-tutor from the university. This allows evaluation of adaptations and provides continuous support in specific cases because sometimes “...they need more intensive support and weekly supervision is carried out” (ID20), as in the case of students with physical or sensory disabilities. Students without a diagnosis (n=26) receive guidance (n=15) on where to seek assistance and minor non-significant methodological adaptations (n=7): “In the case of elite athletes or foreign students, adaptations are made, such as changing the exam date” (ID29).

To address both student profiles (with and without a diagnosis), interviews are conducted as a technique for gathering information (n=29). These are carried out by Guidance Services, especially the SSD. Any student can request an interview, but the purpose varies depending on the student’s profile. For those with a diagnosis, it serves to plan the support they will need throughout their academic career. However, for students who do not have a diagnosis, “The personal interview is very important for identifying needs...” (ID21). Therefore, in both cases, the interview serves to support and guide the student, as well as to refer them (n=23) to specific services or to public health services for diagnosis.

In addition, interviews—as well as counselling sessions—are used to address student mental health, as the incidence of mental health issues has increased according to the psychological support service (n=29). This support is provided in in two ways: 1) some universities assess students’ needs from the service and refer them to external offices they have agreements with or to the public health system (n=22) so that “...they receive treatment” (ID26); 2) other universities have on-campus clinics (n=7) that diagnose, provide treatment, and offer counselling, such as “In the case of students without a diagnosis, if the issue is emotional or psychological, they are referred to the psychological care clinic where they undergo therapy...” (ID28).

Some universities have specific programs (n=12) aimed at the entire student population without the need for a medical diagnosis, only requiring enrolment. These are general in nature and not only provide guidance on administrative aspects such as partial enrolment or scholarships, but also support students with specific socio-economic or personal circumstances, without a possible diagnosis, such as those combining study and work or facing financial problems. Therefore, “It is important that they exist because if this program were to close, there would be people left unattended” (ID34).

All of those interviewed mentioned the use of technological resources to inform and guide students. In some cases merely describing it, in other cases giving their opinion of it. In the latter case, they indicated that technological resources were a suitable complement to face-to-face guidance because it allows remote guidance in cases where it is not possible for students to attend the service or when the campus is very large (n=16): “Technological resources can be an appropriate tool to complement guidance in a face-to-face manner, as there are times when it cannot be done otherwise” (ID29).

However, in 11 interviews, face-to-face guidance was described as more appropriate than using technological resources: “To carry out personalized work, it is better to work face-to-face than with technological resources” (ID18). This is because individual guidance requires interaction between the expert and the student to establish bonds, as well as an atmosphere of trust and closeness that facilitates communication between both parties.

Additionally, technological resources allow Guidance Services to be visible (n=17) and promote communication (n=5), both for coordination between different services and for communication with students. In all the interviews, technological resources for disseminating information were mentioned, and 2 of the interviews indicated that they are more suitable only as a means of information.

Technological resources allow students to access information (n=9) and Guidance Services (n=5). However, it can lead to problems such as anxiety (n=4) or frustration (n=3), because “...they are accustomed to the immediacy provided by digital technologies” (ID19), often resorting to multiple contact channels to get instant responses from the same service.

Looking at the technological resources used by Guidance Services (Table 5), framed by the resource-centred model, what stand out are the use of websites (n=11), platforms (n=11), video (n=6), and apps (n=5). From the relationship-centred model, email (n=21) is included, with the observation that students do not commonly use it (n=13): “Its use still exists, but what happens with this medium is that students don’t read it” (ID08). This might, among other factors, be because students do not have the habit of using email, or because they are suffering information overload.

Another commonly-used resource is social media (n=21), with Instagram (n=12), Twitter (n=10), and Facebook (n=7) being the most prominent, particularly for disseminating information. Students also use these platforms to communicate with Guidance Services, who respond to their queries or refer them to specific services when necessary. For instance: “Through Twitter, questions are answered within 24 hours. There’s a team that handles responding to tweets, and everything gets answered” (ID04).

Guidance Services guide students using video conferencing (n=12) for interviews and follow-ups: “Ultimately, with video conferencing, the face-to-face interaction is still maintained for conducting interviews” (ID27). Finally, student guidance also involves telephone assistance (n=10) as a means of information and guidance, as well as chatbots (n=8) to provide information, particularly administrative information.

Table 5
Technological resources for information and guidance

When the interviews addressed the future of individual guidance, what came up were aspects concerning services (n=31), students (n=25), and technological resources (n=12) (Table 6).

Table 6
Perspective for the future of personalised guidance

Firstly, interviewees noted that more resources are required (n=24), both in terms of human (n=21) and financial resources (n=11), to enhance the quality and individualized attention Guidance Services provides to students. Increasing these resources would enable more awareness and prevention initiatives. Additionally, there needs to be improved coordination (n=15) between services through “common spaces or platforms to ensure that services are interconnected” (ID22).

Secondly, interviewees also noted aspects for improvement related to the different student profiles. On one hand, for students with diverse needs (n=18), there is a need to improve diversity (n=11) and psychological support (n=6). This requires better individualised attention and a more visible profile of the diverse student population at university to “identify and implement necessary plans” (ID30). There is also a need for more teacher and student training (n=5) so they can address various student profiles and normalize diversity: “Teacher training should focus on more specific attention in the classrooms” (ID24). In addition, more generally, interviewees noted (n=10) that there needs to be better communication with students and engagement from Guidance Services (n=10) to create a bond of trust between the two parties and encourage students to seek services when needed.

Thirdly, there is a need to improve the use of technological resources (n=11). This means using the resources that students already use (n=12), giving them an active role and ensuring human intervention. Interviewees noted that using technological resources allows for “the detection of needs through the use of social networks in which students are the ones who generate content” (ID01).