Satisfaction with a daily supportive text messaging program aimed at promoting psychological well-being of educators: Outcomes from implementation of the Wellness4Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Wellness4Teachers program, a daily supportive text messaging program, was launched in Canada to mitigate psychological problems among teachers. Objective: This study assessed subscribers' experiences and satisfaction with the Wellness4Teachers supportive text messaging program. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted during the 2022/2023 academic year and employed a mixed-methods approach. Data was collected from educators who self-subscribed to the free Wellness4Teachers program in Canada. Participants' satisfaction levels were assessed using a Likert scale to evaluate the responses to different aspects of the program. Frequency counts and percentages were used to summarize quantitative responses. Qualitative data from responses to open-ended questions in the satisfaction survey were analyzed using content analysis. Results: Overall, 88.3% of the participants were female, and 11.7% were male. 68.2% of participants agreed that Wellness4Teachers text messages helped them manage stress, 63.1% agreed it helped them cope with anxiety, and 74.4% felt connected to a support system. Additionally, 73.6% reported improved overall mental well-being due to the program, and 72.2% felt hopeful about managing concerns with their mental health. Further, 95.4% of respondents reported that the text messages were always or often positive, and 93.3% deemed them to be always or often affirming. Elementary school teachers and administrators had significantly higher mean satisfaction scores compared to senior high school teachers and educators who selected "other" as their major role in school. Qualitative feedback highlighted preferences for message delivery times and suggestions for enhancing personalization features to improve the Wellness4Teachers program. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that educators were highly satisfied with and receptive to the Wellness4Teachers program. With the addition of enhanced personalization features suggested by the educators, the program may help to effectively supplement support for teachers' psychological well-being while offsetting challenges associated with time constraints and geographical location.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".