Exploring Mental Health and Well-Being Among University Faculty Members: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current exploratory qualitative study describes how environmental factors, social interactions, personal experiences, and stigma affect mental health and help-seeking. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine university faculty members who self-identified as having mental illness–related concerns. Using Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems framework and thematic analysis, four domains were determined: (1) macrosystem (i.e., influences of academic culture); (2) mesosystem (i.e., influences of faculty leadership and interpersonal dynamics); (3) microsystem (i.e., influences of individual mental health experiences); and (4) exosystem (i.e., influences of stigma across structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels). These domains included barriers to and facilitators of mental health and help-seeking. Findings suggest that competitiveness and individualism may perpetuate stereotypes that mental illnesses are inherent weaknesses, and that seeking help is a barrier to academic success. Recommendations for future research are provided. [ Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 60 (11), 17–25.]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".