King’s Wellbeing Survey, and why joined-up student feedback matters

Updated Sep 07, 2026

King’s College London announced its wellbeing survey on 25 February 2026, with fieldwork for undergraduate and postgraduate students from 2 March to 2 April. Questions covered daily life, routines, quality of life, social connections and wellbeing. King’s announcement.

Different surveys with a stated shared purpose

King’s described the survey as separate from NSS and PTES, while saying it used all three to inform its whole-university approach to mental health and wellbeing. The invitation estimated a maximum of ten minutes and stated a data-withdrawal deadline of 1 May 2026. These were local campaign arrangements, not general rules for wellbeing surveys.

The announcement explains intended use. It does not show that joining these sources produced quicker decisions, more representative findings or better wellbeing outcomes. It also does not explain an individual-level data linkage between the three surveys.

A separate King’s article, published 10 November 2025, reported changes including more mid-module feedback opportunities and shorter module surveys. That provides additional context about institutional communication; the wellbeing invitation reviewed here does not itself link to that article. King’s account of feedback-related changes.

Plan the interpretation and response

Our suggestion is to identify the decision each survey can inform before adding it to a calendar. Record who is invited, the collection period and what action is possible from the results. Assign a team to review findings and explain the response to students.

When examining several sources, keep their questions and populations visible. A shared theme may warrant investigation, but its frequency cannot automatically be compared across surveys. Comments can add accounts of experience without proving the cause of a wellbeing measure.

Describe data access and any withdrawal arrangements in the relevant participant information. A general results survey should not be presented as a substitute for an institution’s routes for requesting support. The governance checklist offers planning questions about interpretation and responsibility.

Correction and review note, 7 September 2026: confirmed the historical fieldwork and local withdrawal details, removed the incorrect claim that the invitation links to the separate action page, and distinguished intended use from demonstrated outcomes.