149
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta
2024, Vol. 50, Nº 185, 149-157
ISSN: 0211-7339
Educational institutions as healthy working
environments: well-being and stress management in
education professionals
Las instituciones educativas como ambientes
laborales saludables: bienestar y manejo del estrés en
profesionales de la educación
Tania Gaspar, PhD
Lusofona University/Hei-Lab; Aventura Social Association, Lisboa, Portugal
Susana Pestana, PhD
Polytechnic Institute of Beja, Beja, Portugal
Soa Borges de Sousa | Marta Barata
Lusofona University/Hei-Lab; Aventura Social Association, Lisboa, Portugal
Nuno Loureiro, PhD
Polytechnic Institute of Beja, Beja, Portugal
Margarida Gaspar de Matos, PhD
Catolica University, Lisboa, Portugal
Resumen
El presente estudio explora cómo un entorno de trabajo
saludable afecta el bienestar de los profesionales de la edu-
cación y el papel de las habilidades de gestión del estrés en
la mediación de esta relación. Participaron 405 profesiona-
les de la educación, de los cuales el 69,6% eran mujeres. De
ellos, el 36 % tenía menos de 39 años, mientras que el 64
% tenía 40 años o más. Para evaluar el entorno laboral se
utilizó el instrumento Ecosystems of Healthy Work (EATS),
compuesto por 62 ítems en nueve dimensiones basadas
en el modelo de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los
resultados muestran una relación entre el bienestar, las ha-
bilidades de gestión del estrés y la percepción de un entor-
no de trabajo saludable. Surgieron diferencias en función
del sexo y la estabilidad laboral. El modelo de mediación
reveló una relación entre un entorno de trabajo saludable y
el bienestar de los profesionales, mediada por las habilida-
des de gestión del estrés. El estudio recomienda estrategias
para promover el bienestar y unas condiciones de trabajo
más saludables para los profesionales de la educación.
PalabRas clave
Ecosistemas; educación; bienestar; profesionales;
manejo del estrés.
abstRact
The present study explores how a healthy working en-
vironment aects the well-being of education professio-
nals and the role of stress management skills in mediating
this relationship. A total of 405 education professionals
took part, 69.6 % of whom were female. Of these, 36 %
were under the age of 39, while 64 % were aged 40 or
over. The Ecosystems of Healthy Work (EATS) instrument
was used to assess the work environment, comprising
62 items in nine dimensions based on the World Health
Organisation model. The results show a relationship bet-
ween well-being, stress management skills, and the per-
ception of a healthy work environment. Dierences emer-
ged according to gender and job stability. The mediation
model revealed a relationship between a healthy work
environment and the well-being of professionals, media-
ted by stress management skills. The study recommends
strategies to promote well-being and healthier working
conditions for education professionals.
KeywoRds
Ecosystems; education; wellness; professionals;
stress management.
Correspondencia: Tania Gaspar. Campo Grande, Lisboa, Portugal E-mail: tania.gaspar.barra@gmail.com
Recibido: 31/07/2024; aceptado: 01/10/2024
150 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS HEALTHY WORKING ENVIRONMENTS: WELL-BEING AND STRESS ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
Introduction
Organisations are currently facing a series of
new demands in order to remain competitive,
such as increasing globalisation, new technolo-
gies, more demanding consumers, changing
expectations of professionals, the need to con-
trol costs, the increased importance of knowl-
edge capital or the changing demographics
of professionals, which will increase the need
to manage the health and performance of
their workers (Burke, 2016). It is therefore im-
portant to guarantee well-being in the work-
place, which concerns all aspects of working
life, from the quality and safety of the physi-
cal environment to the way professionals feel
about their work, their working environment,
the climate at work and the organisation of
work (International Labour Organisation [ILO],
2009). Thus, by establishing an empirical link
between workplace practices, employee well-
being and organisational improvements, the
development of the concept of healthy or-
ganisations becomes relevant (Grawitch et al.,
2006). Healthy workplaces are characterised by
a group of professionals who collaborate in a
process of continuous improvement in order
to protect and promote the health, safety and
well-being of all workers and the sustainability
of the workspace (Burton, 2010).
In this sense, since health is a state of com-
plete physical, mental and social well-being
and not just the absence of disease or inrmity
(World Health Organisation), the promotion
of healthy workplaces should be based on the
identication of various needs: (i) health and
safety concerns in the physical work environ-
ment; (ii) health, safety and well-being concerns
in the psychosocial work environment, includ-
ing work organisation and workspace culture;
(iii) personal health resources in the workspace;
(iv) ways of participating in the community to
improve the health of workers, their families
and other community members (Burton, 2010).
The well-being of workers makes a decisive
contribution to the long-term eectiveness of
an organisation, so there is a direct relation-
ship between productivity levels and general
health and well-being (ILO, 2009). According
to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) (2017), the concept
of work environment is understood as a combi-
nation of workplace characteristics that dene
the context in which workers carry out their
professional activity and involve the nature of
the work tasks assigned to each worker, the
physical and social conditions in which the
tasks are carried out, the characteristics of the
organisation where the work is carried out, the
scheduling of working time, the prospects that
the workplace oers workers and the intrinsic
rewards associated with the work.
As a result of this concept, the OECD Guide-
lines for Measuring the Quality of the Working
Environment (OECD, 2017) were developed,
namely: (i) the quality of the working environ-
ment should be measured taking into account
results and not procedures; (ii) the focus should
be on the results obtained by workers at an
individual level and not on what is observed
at a broader level; the measures should cap-
ture, as far as possible, objective aspects of the
workplace and not subjective evaluations of it.
Given the growing interest in aspects related to
individual health, the perspective on healthy
151
TANIA GASPAR · SUSANA PESTANA · SOFIA BORGES · MARTA BARATA · NUNO LOUREIRO · MARGARIDA GASPAR
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
workplaces has expanded beyond traditional
models related to physical health and safety to
include the psychosocial aspects of well-being
at work (Day & Randell, 2014). It is thus recog-
nised that workplace characteristics can aect
not only the physical health but also the men-
tal health of workers, resulting in lower perfor-
mance and productivity (Burton, 2010). With
regard to mental health, there are several fac-
tors that can trigger greater fragility in this area
(family history, health-related behaviours, gen-
der, genetics, life history and personal experi-
ence, access to support and coping strategies),
The characteristics of the workplace can trigger
or amplify problems such as depressive mood,
anxiety or burnout (Burton, 2010), alcohol and
drug abuse, bullying or conict (ILO, 2009). It
is thus recognised that work-related stress is
a determining factor in health and well-being
(Burke, 2016) and although it is not experienced
in the same way, there are cross-cutting catego-
ries that can increase stress, such as work over-
load, the roles assumed (ambiguity or conict),
career concerns, working hours, interpersonal
relationships or the content of the work (Day &
Randell, 2014), discrimination and harassment
or poor leadership (Burke, 2016). On the other
hand, it is known that a global crisis can cause
disruption at work, so the COVID-19 pandemic
has meant that organisations have had to adapt
and implement new safety procedures, in addi-
tion to the emotional and stressful experiences
that have been intensied by uncertainty, de-
spair and isolation, leading to burnout on a
global scale (Gabriel & Aguinis, 2022). There are
various models that explain the development
of healthy workplaces. The model presented by
Kelloway and Day (2005) is based on a holistic
approach that includes psychosocial and physi-
cal factors that are predictors of a healthy work-
place: (i) employee safety, (ii) health and safety,
and (iii) health and safety work environment;
(iv) work-life balance; (v) supportive, respect-
ful and fair culture; (vi) professional involve-
ment and development; (vii) work content and
characteristics; (viii) interpersonal relationships
at work. Healthy workplaces can thus be char-
acterised as those that incorporate practices,
programmes, policies or work design that pro-
mote or reinforce the positive health and well-
being of workers or that remedy or prevent
their workers’ stress or other negative aspects
of health and well-being (Day & Randell, 2014).
Improving the quality of the working environ-
ment has been recognised as a political priority
in recent years, and the operationalisation of
the OECD Guidelines for Measuring the Quality
of the Working Environment in a recent study
conrmed the relevance of non-remunerative
work characteristics to workers’ physical and
mental health and well-being, as well as moti-
vation and job satisfaction (OECD, 2022).
This study aims to understand and charac-
terise how a healthy working environment af-
fects the well-being of education professionals
and how stress management skills can mediate
this relationship.
Method
Participants
A total of 405 participants took part in the
study, 69.6% female. Regarding the age of the
participants, 36% were aged up to 39 years
and 64% were 40 years or older.
152 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS HEALTHY WORKING ENVIRONMENTS: WELL-BEING AND STRESS ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
Instruments
To measure Healthy Work Environment was
used Healthy Workplace Ecosystems instru-
ment (EATS) (Gaspar et al., 2022) that compris-
es a total of 62 items organized into 9 dimen-
sions based on the Healthy Workplaces model
proposed by the World Health Organization
(Burton, 2010). The Ethics and Values dimen-
sion has 8 items (α = .91), the Commitment to
Leadership has 6 items (α = .95), the Worker In-
volvement has 7 items (α = .89), the Psychoso-
cial Risks at Work related to Work Content and
Relationships with Leadership has 12 items (α
= .91), the Psychosocial Risks at Work related to
Well-being and Mental Health has 5 items (α =
.86), the Physical Environment has 5 items (α =
.92), Teleworking has 3 items (α = .82), the Com-
munity Involvement has 12 items (α = .90) and
Resources for Personal Health has 4 items (α =
.83). All questions have a 5-point Likert-type
scale. The Cronbach’s alpha levels obtained for
each factor show that they have adequate in-
ternal consistency (between .82 and .95) and
Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale is .91.
The 4-item version of the Stress Perception
Scale (EPS) was used to assess the degree to
which an individual evaluates their life situa-
tions as stressful which in the present study re-
vealed adequate internal consistency (α =.77).
All questions have a 5-point Likert-type scale
where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5
represents strongly agree. A higher score ob-
tained in the scale reveals a less positive per-
ception of stress management.
Well-being was measured using the WHO-
5 scale (Portuguese version) (Coelho et al.,
2022). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index consists
of 5 items with 6 responses categories ranging
from “All the time” to “At no time” with an inter-
nal consistency (α = .87), range 1 (less well- be-
ing) to 25 (more well-being).
The characterisation of the variables is pre-
sented in Table 1.
Procedure
The study was submitted to and approved
by the Ethics Committee of the Prof Fernando
Fonseca Hospital, reference EPE 031/2021.
Sampling was by convenience. Higher educa-
tion institutions that agreed to participate re-
ceived the instrument via a link and dissemi-
nated the link internally to academic commu-
nity. The link gave access to an explanation of
the study, contact details for the researchers to
Table 1
Characterisation of variables
Min. Máx. Range
Lack of well-being 5.00 28.00
< 9.4 high wellbeing
9.5- 18.5 moderate wellbeing
>18.6 low wellbeing
Perceived Stress Scale 4.00 17.00
< 5.5 low stress
5.6- 13.4 moderate stress
>13.5 high stress
Healthy Work Environment (EATS) 32.00 95.00
< 31.5 low EATS
31.6- 63.4 moderate EATS
> 63.5 high EATS
153
TANIA GASPAR · SUSANA PESTANA · SOFIA BORGES · MARTA BARATA · NUNO LOUREIRO · MARGARIDA GASPAR
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
clarify any doubts, information on condenti-
ality, anonymity and the voluntary nature of
participation. The participant only had access
to the instrument after signing the informed
consent form.
Results
In terms of household composition, 28.4%
of participants reported living alone while
71.6% lived with others. Regarding their em-
ployment status, 53.4% had a xed-term con-
tract and 46.6% had a permanent contract.
The participants showed moderate risk
values in relation to wellbeing and perceived
stress, and showed low risk in relation to
Healthy work Environmental (Table 2).
The correlations between the scales are sta-
tistically signicant, indicating the presence of
a high positive correlation between perception
of lack of well-being and the Perceived Stress
Scale (r=.568) and a high negative correlation
between perception of lack of well-being and
the healthy work environment (r=-.620) as well
as between the Perceived Stress Scale and the
healthy work environment (r=-.568) (Table 3).
Regarding sex dierences, according to
Table 4, the lack of well-being perception
of female professionals (M=16.40; SD=5.76)
was higher than that of male professionals
(M=13.49; SD=5.32), and this dierence was
statistically signicant (t(405)=3.224; p=.002,
d=.52). The stress perception of female profes-
sionals (M=10.13; SD=2.98; n=105) was high-
er than that of male professionals (M=8.97;
SD=2.75), and this dierence was statistically
signicant (t(405)=2.501; p=.013, d=.40. Final-
ly, the perception of a healthy work environ-
ment among female professionals (M=65.93;
SD=9.81) was lower than that of male profes-
sionals (M=69.36; SD=11.52), and this dier-
ence was statistically signicant (t(405)=-2.033;
p=<.044, d=-.33).
With respect to the type of contract, accord-
ing to Table 5, the perception of a healthy work
environment among professionals with a xed-
term contract (M=69.03; SD=11.22) was higher
than that of professionals with a permanent
Table 2
Descriptive statistics
Min. Máx. M SD
Lack of well-being 5.00 28.00 15.33 5.74
Perceived Stress Scale 4.00 17.00 9.71 2.93
Healthy Work Environment (EATS) 32.00 95.00 67.22 10.54
Table 3
Correlations between scales
Lack of well-being Perceived Stress Scale Healthy Work Environment
Lack of well-being 1 .568*** -.620***
Perceived Stress Scale 1 -.568***
Healthy Work Environment 1
*** p<.001
154 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS HEALTHY WORKING ENVIRONMENTS: WELL-BEING AND STRESS ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
contract (M=65.25; SD=9.44), and this dier-
ence was statistically signicant (t(405)=2.348;
p=.020, d=.36). No statistically signicant dif-
ferences were found between groups regard-
ing the perception of lack of well-being and
the perception of stress.
With the aim of verifying a potential mediat-
ing eect of perception of stress in the predic-
tive relationship between the perception of a
healthy work environment and the perception
of lack of well-being, a mediation model was
developed (Figure 1). The results indicate that
in the tested mediation model, the assessed
indirect eect is signicant, with the percep-
tion of stress acting as a mediating factor in
the relationship between the perception of a
healthy work environment and the perception
of lack of well-being (b = -.18; SE = .05; IC 95%
= [-.29; -.08]). The model explains 67% of the
variation. Therefore, it is evident that the per-
ception of a healthy work environment inu-
ences the well-being of professionals, and the
promotion of stress management skills can be
considered a protective factor for well-being.
Discussion
In response to our study objective: how a
healthy working environment aects the well-
being of education professionals and how
stress management skills can mediate this
relationship, we found that education profes-
Table 4
Comparison between groups regarding sex
Female Male t/sig
M SD M SD
Lack of well-being 16.40 5.76 13.49 5.32 3.224**
Perceived Stress Scale 10.13 2.98 8.97 2.75 2.501*
Healthy Work Environment 65.93 9.81 69.36 11.52 -2.033*
* p<.05; ** p<.01
Table 5
Comparison between groups regarding the type of contract
Fixed-term contract Permanent contract t/sig
M SD M SD
Lack of well-being 14.68 5.45 16.04 6.00 -1.534
Perceived Stress Scale 9.68 2.94 9.74 2.95 -.130
Healthy Work Environment 69.03 11.22 65.25 9.44 2.348**
** p<.01
Figure 1. Mediation model
155
TANIA GASPAR · SUSANA PESTANA · SOFIA BORGES · MARTA BARATA · NUNO LOUREIRO · MARGARIDA GASPAR
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
sionals showed moderate levels of well-be-
ing, stress management and perception of a
healthy work environment. According to Shen
and Slater (2021) most studies show that aca-
demics experience moderate to high level of
stress, with the heavy workload being one of
the main stressors. In a study by Kolomitro et
al. (2019), the authors found that characteris-
tics and actions of the director/manager and
of colleagues, leadership instability, misalign-
ment of actions with organizational values, lim-
ited resources, demanding workloads, work-
place scheduling, and the precarious nature of
educational development appointments were
pointed by the professionals as factors related
to the work environment that inuenced neg-
atively their well-being. Also in a study carried
out by Rahoo et al. (2017) the authors found
that there are several factors of the work envi-
ronment that contribute to the experience of
stress of administrators and teachers in higher
education institutions, namely time overload,
infrastructure, student indiscipline and pros-
pects of low salaries.
We found that there is a strong correla-
tion between the variables under study: the
perception of a healthy work environment is
negatively correlated with a lack of well-being
and with the perception of stress. Lack of well-
being is positively correlated with perceived
stress. In a study carried out by Zábrodská et
al. (2014), the authors discovered that the well-
being of academic faculty is specically related
to certain variations associated with the work
environment, such as autonomy, involvement
in decision-making, low pressure to produce
and a strong social community. On the other
hand, they also found that emotions related
to stress and burnout were associated with
environmental characteristics related to the
perception of lack of inuence and the exist-
ence of high quantitative demands. According
to the literature, occupational stress has been
constantly rising among academics in uni-
versities globally (Shen & Slater, 2021), which
aects their health and well-being (Mensah,
2021; Shen & Slater, 2021).
When comparing men and women, we
found that women are at greater risk, as they
express less well-being, more stress and a
more negative perception of the work environ-
ment when compared to men. These results
are in line with other studies that have dem-
onstrated that women show less well-being
in the work environment and more job stress
when compared to men (Mensah, 2021; Wilks
& Neto, 2012). In a study carried out by Macha-
do-Taylor et al. (2014) the authors found that
women were less satised with aspects of the
work environment carried out such as person-
al and professional development, especially
the balance between work and family when
compared to men.
When we compare professional stability,
there were no statistically signicant dier-
ences in the well-being of the professionals,
despite the scientic literature indicating that
xed-term professionals’ well-being tends
to be lower when compared to professionals
with permanent contracts due to heightened
job insecurity (Dawson et al., 2014; Schumann
& Kuchinke, 2019). Nevertheless, we found that
professionals with lower professional stability
show a more negative perception of the work
156 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS HEALTHY WORKING ENVIRONMENTS: WELL-BEING AND STRESS ...
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
environment when compared to professionals
with a more stable situation.
It was found a mediating eect of percep-
tion of stress in the predictive relationship
between the perception of a healthy work en-
vironment and the perception of lack of well-
being. The results indicate that the perception
of a healthy work environment inuences the
well-being of professionals, and the promo-
tion of stress management skills can be con-
sidered a protective factor for well-being. In
this way, this study is in line with a study con-
ducted by Marck et al. (2014), that demonstrat-
ed the importance of providing a stable and
safe workplace and improve the workplace
culture in order to promote the well-being and
mental health of the education professionals.
This study also demonstrates the importance
of promoting stress management skills in the
professionals, in order to promote their well-
being, which is in line with a study of Kolom-
itro et al. (2019), that states the relevance of
helping education professionals implement
strategies to cope with stress, anxiety, and
burnout. These strategies may include engag-
ing in activities, promoting social connection,
embracing self-care and seeking for help.
The performance of academic sta has an
direct impact on student learning and on the
quality of higher education institutions. There-
fore, is critical to improve their satisfaction in
order to promote an eective functioning of
the higher education institutions (Machado-
Taylor et al., 2014). Our study highlighted the
importance of promoting a healthy work envi-
ronment and workers’ ability to manage stress,
with the aim of contributing to their well-be-
ing.
The translational implications of our study
suggest a twofold action, from one side upon
individuals providing resources such as work-
shops or bootcamps where professionals and
students can be training on how to manage
stress and other self-care skills that may help
them achieving a better well-being percep-
tion. From another side organisational manag-
ers could be motivated to provide a safe and
sheltering work environment where stress
sources may be addressed and delt with (ex.
matching the load of duties with individual ca-
pacities and schedules), with a special concern
for female situation. Finally, at a macrolevel,
the study highlights the importance of cheer-
ing public policies that care about the quality
of workplaces, both from a human point of
view but also when targeting productivity and
professional success.
References
Burke, R. J. (2016). Improving individual and
organizational health: Implementing and
learning from interventions. In C. Biron, R. J.
Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Creating healthy
workplaces stress reduction, improved well-
being, and organizational eectiveness
(pp.1-19). Routledge.
Burton, J. (2010). WHO healthy workplace
framework and model: Background and
supporting literature and practices. World
Health Organization.
Dawson, C., Veliziotis, M., & Hopkins, B. (2014).
Temporary employment, job satisfaction
and subjective well-being. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 38(1), 69-98. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0143831X1455978
Day, A., & Randell, K. D. (2014). Building a
foundation for psychologically healthy
workplaces and well-being. In A. Day, E. K.
157
TANIA GASPAR · SUSANA PESTANA · SOFIA BORGES · MARTA BARATA · NUNO LOUREIRO · MARGARIDA GASPAR
Análisis y Modicación de Conducta, 2024, vol. 50, nº 185
Kelloway, & J. J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Workplace
well-being: How to build psychologically
healthy workplaces (pp.3-26). John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Gabriel, K. P., & Aguinis, H. (2021). How to
prevent and combat employee burnout
and create healthier workplaces during
crises and beyond. Business Horizons,
65, 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2021.02.037
Gaspar, T., Faia-Correia, M., Machado, M., Xavier,
M., Jesus, S., Botelho Guedes, F., Cerqueira,
A., Pais-Ribeiro, J. L., Canhão, H., & Matos,
M. G. (2023). Ecossistemas dos Ambientes
de Aprendizagem Saudáveis: Instrumento
de avaliação EA2S. Revista Psicologia,
Saúde & Doenças, 4(2), 537–549. https://doi.
org/10.15309/23psd240210
Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz,
D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy
workplace: A critical review linking healthy
workplace practices, employee well-
being, and organizational improvements.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 58(3), 129–147. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129
International Labour Organization (2009).
Workplace well-being. https://www.ilo.org/
safework/info/WCMS_118396/lang--en/
index.htm
Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. (2005). Building
healthy workplaces: What we know so far.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
37(4), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0087259
Kolomitro, K., Kenny, N., & Sheeld, S. L.
(2019). A call to action: exploring and
responding to educational developers’
workplace burnout and well-being in
higher education. International Journal
for Academic Development. https://doi.
org/10.10 80/1360144X.2019.1705303
Machado-Taylor, M. L., White, K., & Gouveia, O.
(2014). Job satisfaction of academics: Does
gender matter?. Higher Education Policy, 0,
1-22.
Marck, C. H., Ayton, D., Steward, T., Koay, H.,
Wiley, J. F., Taiaroa, G., Walton, C. C., Weld-
Blundell, I., Greaves, M. D., & Singh, A. (2024).
The workplace culture, mental health and
wellbeing of early- and mid-career health
academics: a cross-sectional analysis.
BMC Public Health, 24(1122). https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-024-18556-0
Mensah, A. (2021). Job stress and mental well-
being among working men and women in
Europe: The mediating role of social support.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18(2494).
OECD (2017). OECD Guidelines on measuring
the quality of the working environment.
OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264278240-en
OECD (2022). The relationship between quality
of the working environment, workers’health
and well-being: Evidence from 28 OECD
Countries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1787/c3be1162-en
Rahoo, L. A., Raza, S. A., Arain, M. W., & Memon,
M. (2017). A study on occupational
stress among faculty members in private
institutes of Hyderabad, Sindh. Research on
Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(1), 1-7.
Schumann, P., & Kuchinke, L. (2020). Do(n’t)
worry, it’s temporary: The eects of xed-
term employment on aective well-being. J
Happiness Stud, 21, 2557–2582. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10902-019-00194-8
Shen, P., & Slater, P. (2021). Occupational
stress, coping strategies, health, and
well-being among university academic
sta—An integrative review. International
Education Studies, 14(12), 99-124. https://
doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n12p99
Wilks D. C., & Neto, F. (2012). Workplace well-
being, gender and age: Examining the
“double jeopardy” eect. Soc. Indic. Res.
Zábrodská, K., Mudrák, J., Květoň, P., Blatný, M.,
Machovcová, K., & Solcová, I. (2014). Work
environment and well-being of academic
faculty in Czech universities: A pilot study.
Studia paedagogica, 19(4), 121-144. https://
doi.org/10.5817/SP2014-4-6
