Investigating Higher Education Teachers’ Well-Being and Its Influencing Multiple Factors: A Systematic Review Approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Teachers from higher education commonly face substantial workloads, resulting in heightened stress and reduced well-being. This has spurred significant academic interest in the determinants of faculty well-being within higher education. Consequently, numerous studies have focused on both understanding these influencing factors and developing strategies to bolster teacher well-being, an area that has gained considerable traction as a research focus. Although systematic reviews have been conducted to elucidate the connections between well-being and particular attributes like emotional regulation, efficacy, and competency, there remains a paucity of reviews that holistically examine the multifaceted factors affecting the well-being of university and college faculty. Methods: In this study, using a systematic review approach, we explore higher education teachers’ well-being (HETWB) and its influencing multiple-dynamic factors. Following PRISMA 2020, Web of Science and ERIC were selected as the meta-database, and 42 publications were obtained by strict criteria during literature screening. The basic information about the studies, including publication trends, regional distribution, method, and the factors affecting the well-being of college teachers, has been analyzed. Results: A review of the literature suggests a notable increase in scholarly attention directed towards teachers’ well-being in recent decades. Comparative bibliometric analysis identifies China, Spain, Canada, and the United States as the leading nations in terms of publications on this topic. Within this body of research, quantitative methods, particularly questionnaire-based surveys (n = 31), predominate as the primary investigative strategy. The determinants of teachers’ well-being are commonly categorized into several domains: demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, family status, university type/level, academic major, position, tenure); external work-related factors (e.g., availability of job resources, level of job demands); internal personal attributes (e.g., physical status, mental status, mental traits, mental competencies); interactive processes (e.g., work-home conflict/balance); and potential moderators (e.g., quality of work relationships). Additionally, there is a growing body of research dedicated to elucidating the multifaceted and dynamic mechanisms that govern the well-being of college faculty. Conclusion: Firstly, our global perspective allows us to move beyond the limitations of region-specific research and identify commonalities and variations in the factors influencing faculty well-being across diverse cultural and institutional contexts. Furthermore, we emphasize the bidirectional nature of these relationships, illustrating how well-being not only influences work outcomes (e.g., performance, and job satisfaction) but also receives impacts from them, creating a dynamic feedback loop. Finally, our inclusion of the counter-effect, where high levels of well-being, as conceptualized in HETWB, can lead to better psychological states, work performance, and access to resources, further enriches the understanding of this field.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».