A workplace wellness program protects against COVID-19 effects on mental wellbeing

Abstract

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic had deleterious effects on workers’ mental wellbeing. The current study investigated the impact of an online workplace wellness program on teacher mental wellbeing and mindfulness during the first four months of nation-wide quarantine in New Zealand. Longitudinal data at three time points were examined: baseline, end of program, and 3 months post-program in a sample of 32 teachers. Tests of paired data of baseline versus the later time points found statistically significant improvements in mental wellbeing (Warwick-Edinburg Mental Wellbeing Scale) and mindfulness (The Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire) with large effect sizes. Mindfulness scores were higher at 3 months follow up compared to end-of-program suggesting teachers’ mindfulness ratings continued to improve after program completion. Implications for research and workplace training are discussed.

Keywords:

• COVID-19
• intervention
• mindfulness
• mindfulness-based intervention
• teachers
• wellbeing

Introduction

COVID-19 was officially declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2020). The infection initially reported in December 2019, reached New Zealand on 28 February 2020 causing the New Zealand Government to institute nation-wide self-isolation and a State of National Emergency on 25 March 2020 (New Zealand Government, 2021). Teachers were among the occupations significantly impacted by work-from-home policies as they were required to change their instructional practice from face-to-face to online in a very short period of time. The onus placed on teachers was significant as they grappled with developing online teaching material, becoming familiarized with digital platforms while training their students how to use them, ensuring they delivered the required curriculum, and performing all due assessments. For many teachers, these work obligations were exacerbated by their caring duties either for their own children who required home-schooling, or for elderly parents and/or relatives. Global surveys across different professions found that mandatory lockdowns, social distancing, home-schooling, and other COVID-related changes to one’s work, caused a rise in stress, burnout symptoms, and mental distress (Giorgi et al., 2020; Lund et al., 2021; Tucker & Czapla, 2021). Although there are no New Zealand surveys dedicated specifically to educators, it can be inferred teachers experienced similar, if not more acute symptoms given that stress and burnout had already been prevalent in the profession (Aluja, Blanch, & García, 2005; Collie, 2021; Hultell, Melin, & Gustavsson, 2013; Sokal, Trudel, & Babb, 2020). Two recent studies dedicated to exploring the mental wellbeing of US (Pressley, 2021) and Canadian teachers (Sokal et al., 2020) during the COVID-19 pandemic support this claim. Pressley (2021) found high rates of burnout for US teachers, with the highest stressors being virus exposure anxiety, teaching demands, and parent communication. Similarly, Sokal et al. (2020) found an increase in emotional exhaustion and cynicism, two of the three dimensions of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), in Canadian teachers during the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.

Both Pressley (2021) and Sokal et al. (2020) called for schools to support teachers in managing stress and burnout symptoms, although they did not provide specific examples of how that could be achieved. In their review of pandemic effects on worker wellbeing, Giorgi et al. (2020) recommended the organizational implementation of anti-contagion measures and of resilience and wellbeing programs. Gabriel and Aguinis (2022) also highlighted that wellbeing interventions, particularly those underpinned by cognitive behavioral therapy or mindfulness, can be effective in reducing stress and burnout symptoms. Indeed, existing literature on the impact of mindfulness and wellness workplace training showed promising results and called for more research to be done in this space (Baicker, Cutler, & Song, 2010; Carolan, Harris, & Cavanagh, 2017).

To date there were no intervention studies examining the impact of a wellness program on teacher wellbeing in New Zealand (NZ), or elsewhere, during the COVID-19 pandemic and it was this gap in research that the present study aimed to address. In fact, NZ teacher wellbeing and mindfulness had been under-researched. Most previous studies focused on burnout (Bianchi, Schonfeld, & Laurent, 2016; Milfont, Denny, Ameratunga, Robinson, & Merry, 2008; Whitehead, Ryba, & O’Driscoll, 2000), with the exception of Bernay (2014) who investigated the impact of mindfulness practices for first-year teachers. Considering the impact of COVID-19 on teacher wellbeing (Education Review Office, 2021) and the promising results mindfulness-based interventions had yielded in teacher populations elsewhere (For a review see Emerson et al., 2017; Hwang, Bartlett, Greben, & Hand, 2017), it was imperative to investigate the acceptability and effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention on NZ teacher mental wellbeing. This study aimed to address this gap by employing a mindfulness-based programme called “The Wellbeing Protocol” (WP).

The wellbeing protocol – programme background

WP was created in Australia and further developed in New Zealand by a consultancy called Heart and Brain Works. This consultancy specializes in providing workplace training and in identifying aspects of work that can cause psychological harm, also known as psychosocial hazards, such as high workload, low job resources, offensive behaviors, lack of role clarity, etc (Heart and Brain Works, 2021). WP utilizes mindfulness, meditation, and cognitive behavioral techniques to improve participants’ mental wellbeing. WP is based on the core mindfulness principles of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Stahl & Goldstein, 2010; Williams & Penman, 2011) and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Crane, 2018) adapted for non-clinical populations and designed to offer practical, accessible, and relevant training to adults in a workplace context. Like MBSR and MBCT, WP is a group-based intervention designed to be delivered by an experienced mindfulness trainer. Unlike the other two Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) however, WP was adapted to fit into a workplace context in several ways: (1) the mode of delivery is online to minimize disruption to work schedules and allow participants who could not attend the live sessions to watch replays; (2) the number of hours compared to MBSR (26 hours session time) is reduced to 12 hours; (3) team challenges are run throughout the duration of the program to foster the creation of a community of practice in the workplace; and (4) the practical application of the principles discussed refer to workplace contexts such as deadlines, having difficult conversations, or keeping calm under pressure. Team challenges involve the practice of techniques learnt in the sessions and aim to promote the internalization of these techniques as new habits.

Theoretical context

Several concepts underpin the design of the current study, namely wellbeing, mindfulness and mindfulness-based interventions.

Mental wellbeing and mindfulness

Positive mental wellbeing represents an important protective factor against mental health issues (Gargiulo & Stokes, 2009). It is a significant contributor to psychological functioning, as well as to health and social outcomes (Stewart-Brown et al., 2009). The term is used in both academic literature and policy interchangeably with positive mental health (Hunter, Houghton, & Wood, 2015). Following a period of disagreement on its definition, the concept was accepted to cover two main aspects of wellbeing: eudaimonic, meaning positive functioning, and hedonic, meaning subjective wellbeing and happiness (Clarke et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2015; Tennant et al., 2007). Keyes (2007) argued that it took a combination of these two aspects for a person to be considered mentally healthy, and not merely the absence of mental illness. This was reflected in the last decade by the gradual shift from assessing mental health almost exclusively by measures of psychological distress or mental illness, to inclusion of instruments that capture the eudaimonic and hedonic dimensions and their inherent protective factors such as feelings of joy and contentment, positive relations with others, autonomy, and sense of purpose in life (Hunter et al., 2015; Ng Fat, Scholes, Boniface, Mindell, & Stewart-Brown, 2017). There are few studies that explore the relations between these aspects of mental wellbeing and mindfulness (See Beshai, McAlpine, Weare, & Kuyken, 2016 and Lomas, Medina, Ivtzan, Rupprecht, & Eiroa-Orosa, 2017 for two exceptions) and none that we could locate that investigated this relation in the context of a wellness program delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The most widely used definition of mindfulness in the current literature comes from Kabat-Zinn (2013, p. 4): “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally.” Originally stemming from Buddhist meditation practice, mindfulness in the West retained the core tenet of this tradition, namely that the state of present moment, non-judgmental awareness could be cultivated through the intentional and regular practice of meditation (Bennett & Dorjee, 2016; Chaskalson, 2011). Mindfulness practice touches upon different aspects, and although the number and definition of these facets varies in the literature, the most commonly cited ones, which the present study also adhered to, stem from the work of Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, and Toney (2006) and they include: observing (i.e., noticing external and internal stimuli, such as emotions, sensations, thoughts, sounds), describing (i.e., mentally labeling these stimuli), acting with awareness (i.e., being present and intentional with one’s action as opposed to acting on automatic pilot or absent-mindedly), non-judging of inner experience (i.e., not evaluating one’s emotions or cognitions), and non-reactivity to inner experience (i.e., not reacting to, impulsively acting on or allowing attention to become identified with emotions or cognitions). A growing body of research associates mindfulness with beneficial effects such as improved emotional and cognitive functioning (Jha, Stanley, Kiyonaga, Wong, & Gelfand, 2010), reduced stress (Anastasiades, Kapoor, Wootten, & Lamis, 2017; Bennett & Dorjee, 2016), and improved immune function (Davidson et al., 2003).

Mindfulness-based interventions and wellness programs in the workplace

MBIs have recently been integrated into workplaces with positive results on a variety of markers such as reduced stress and burnout, improved performance, workplace relationships, and motivation (Aikens et al., 2014; Good et al., 2016). Given its positive outcomes, mindfulness training was made available to teachers in order to enhance their wellbeing and health (Ancona & Mendelson, 2014; Felver & Jennings, 2016; Flook et al., 2010, Flook, Goldberg, Pinger, Bonus, & Davidson, 2013). MBIs for teachers have been shown to support reductions in stress and burnout symptoms, and increases in emotional regulation (Flook et al., 2013; Hue & Lau, 2015; Jennings, 2011; Molloy Elreda, Jennings, DeMauro, Mischenko, & Brown, 2019). Bernay (2014), Roeser (2014), and Roeser et al. (2013) each recommended the inclusion of mindfulness training in teacher development programs given its positive affect emotion regulation and stress reduction.

Reviews of existing literature suggested that MBIs lead to significant improvements in wellbeing, although most studies use measures of mental distress to ascertain this (Grégoire, Lachance, & Taylor, 2015). In their review of mindfulness studies, Goyal et al. (2014) observed that few studies included wellbeing indicators and recommended further research to be undertaken in order to investigate the relationship between MBIs and eudemonic and hedonic aspects of wellbeing. Additionally, the effect of MBIs over time needed to be further explored. In a meta-analysis of the impact of MBIs on employee psychological distress, Virgili (2015) concluded that follow-up times were short in most cases (an average of 8.3 weeks) and further studies should explore more the effectiveness of mindfulness training over time. Carmody and Baer (2008) pointed out that there was a need to investigate the mechanisms by which mindfulness training exerted positive effects, particularly assessing whether participants in an MBI actually became more mindful over time, and if so, whether this increase was correlated with mental wellbeing outcomes.

The present study set out to examine these questions in relation to the mindfulness-based wellness program The Wellbeing Protocol and aimed to explore if the programme had any affect participant levels of mental wellbeing and mindfulness.

Methodology

Participants

Participants were selected from a sample of New Zealand teachers who responded to Facebook advertisements. The only selection criterion was to be actively employed. Participants volunteered and gave consent to participate in the study in accordance with ethical research guidelines. Participants received no compensation or incentives to be part of the intervention or to complete the data collection. The intervention was delivered online to New Zealand teachers in the first four months of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, outside of working hours. The program consisted of 12 sessions on topics such as stress reduction techniques, managing emotions, mindfulness, and cognitive patterns that cause anxiety. Participants engaged in individual practice in between sessions. The practice changed weekly and it typically involved the technique presented in the live session and an accompanying guided audio meditation. Participants were provided with several guided audio meditations to choose from and also with Wellbeing Cards, a series of visual prompts that aimed to foster adoption of positive habits of mind.

Originally 58 individuals registered for the program, out of which 47 attended the first session. The final sample used for this study was 32 participants who attended eight sessions or more and who completed the surveys at all three points in time: before, immediately after and three months following the intervention. Participants were excluded from analysis if they did not fill in all three questionnaires or did not attend at least eight sessions. There were no missing variables in the data analyzed. Program attrition rate was 20.6%, 12 participants who withdrew for various reasons including bereavement, illness, carer responsibilities or work promotion resulting in increased workload. Overall, the results were not disaggregated by age, gender, or instructional context due to the small sample size (N = 32) (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic data.

Demographic variables
Age	20–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	60–69
	3%	16%	31%	47%	3%
	1	5	10	15	1
Gender	Female	Male
	97%	3%
	31	1

Data collection

Data were collected before, immediately after, and three months following program completion. The self-reported mindfulness and wellbeing measures used were combined into a single online survey, which was emailed to participants at the three collection times above.

Measures

Mindfulness

Mindfulness was measured using a short form of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-15; Baer et al., 2006; Baer, Carmody, & Hunsinger, 2012). The scale was comprised of 15 items and measured five aspects of mindfulness: observing (e.g., “I watch my feelings without getting lost in them”), describing (e.g., “My natural tendency is to put my experiences into words”), acting with awareness (e.g., “When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted”; reverse coded), non-judging of inner experience (e.g., “I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them”; reverse coded), and non-reactivity to inner experience (e.g., “When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after”). The FFMQ-15 was scored on a 7-point scale (‘“never’” to ‘“every time,’” 1–7), with 7 items reverse scored. This scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Baer et al., 2006, 2012; Gu et al., 2016). Gu et al. (2016) recommended the exclusion of the observing facet from comparisons of total or subscale scores before and after mindfulness interventions as it does not converge well with the other facets that underpin mindfulness. The present study followed this recommendation and a total mindfulness score was not computed. Instead, total scores were calculated for the remaining four dimensions of mindfulness. In the current study, internal consistency for the baseline scores was: describing α = .78, acting with awareness α = .60, non-judging of inner experience α = .77, and non-reactivity to inner experience α = .85. Although the baseline score reliability for acting with awareness was below 70, the reliability of post-program scores was α = .82. We therefore included the sub-scale in our analyses.

Wellbeing

Wellbeing was measured using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009). The scale captured a broad representation of wellbeing including psychological functioning (e.g., “I’ve been thinking clearly”), cognitive-evaluative dimensions (e.g., “I’ve been dealing with problems well”), and affective-emotional aspects (e.g., “I’ve been feeling cheerful”). The scale consisted of 14 positively-phrased items that asked participants to rate their experience over the previous two weeks. The WEMWBS was scored on a 7-point scale (‘“never’” to ‘“every time,’” 1–7) and the items were summed into a total wellbeing score (range 14–98). This scale previously demonstrated good reliability and validity (Stewart-Brown et al., 2009; Tennant et al., 2007). In the current study, internal consistency for the baseline scores was α = .96.

Data analysis

The quantitative data from FFMQ-15 and WEMWBS were entered into and analyzed using a statistical software package (IBM SPSS Statistics v.27). One-way repeated measures Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) with time as the within-subjects factor were conducted to evaluate changes in participants’ self-reported levels of describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, non-reactivity to inner experience, and wellbeing at the three assessment points: T1 (prior to the program), T2 (immediately after the program), and T3 (at three-months follow-up). In order to correct for a potential Type I error, Bonferroni corrections were performed for post-hoc pairwise comparisons. The corresponding effect size was reported as partial eta squared (η_p²). In addition, Pearson correlation coefficients were used to explore the relations between changes in wellbeing and changes in the four dimensions of mindfulness.

Results

Mindfulness

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of the program, over the study period, on participants’ self-reported levels of describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience.

Results showed a statistically significant effect by time for all four mindfulness facets as shown in Table 2: describing F(2, 62) = 6.73, p = .002, η_p² = .17, acting with awareness F(2, 62) = 7.50, p = .001, η_p² = .19, non-judging of inner experience F(2, 62) = 8.90, p = .001, η_p² = .22, and non-reactivity to inner experience F(2, 62)=8.30, p = .001, η_p² = .21, all with large effect sizes (Cohen, 1992). Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons showed a marginally significant reduction in all four facets from baseline to post program (p < .01) and a statistically significant reduction from baseline to three-month follow up (p < .01). Hence, teacher mindfulness ratings continued to improve after the Wellbeing Protocol had been completed.

Table 2. Estimated marginal means, standard errors, time effect size, and reliabilities for FFMQ-15 (N = 32).

Measure	Mean T1 (SE)	Mean T2 (SE)	Mean T3 (SE)	Reliability (α)
FFMQ-D	13.38 (.61)	14.69 (.56)*	14.91 (.51)*	.78
FFMQ-AA	13.13 (.50)	14.31 (.47)*	14.78 (.30)*	.60
FFMQ-NJ	14.63 (.49)	15.97 (.45)*	16.63 (.44)*	.77
FFMQ-NR	11.75 (.66)	13.50 (.48)*	13.59 (.61)*	.85

FFMQ: Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; FFMQ scores range from 1 to 7. The FFMQ comprises the subscales D (describing), AA (acting with awareness), NJ (non-judging of inner experience), and NR (non-reactivity to inner experience). SE: standard error. *Statistically significant change from T1.

Wellbeing

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of WP on participants’ self-reported wellbeing over the study period. Results showed a statistically significant effect for time for mean wellbeing ratings, F(2, 62)=4.41, p = .016, η_p² = .12, a large effect size (Cohen, 1992). Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant increase in wellbeing from baseline to post program (p < .05) and a non-statistically significant reduction at three-month follow up. T2 and T3 means are, however, higher than T1 (Table 3).

Table 3. Estimated marginal means, standard errors, and reliabilities for WEMWBS (N = 32).

Measure	Mean T1 (SE)	Mean T2 (SE)	Mean T3 (SE)	Reliability (α)
WEMWBS	62.12 (2.29)	69.68 (2.18)*	65.53 (2.68)	.96

WEMWBS: Warwick-Edinburg Mental Wellbeing Scale; WEMWBS scores range from 1 to 7. SE: standard error. *Statistically significant change from T1.

Relations between changes in wellbeing and the four mindfulness facets

To examine the relations between changes in wellbeing and changes in the subscales of mindfulness, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated using change scores (WEMWBS and subscales of FFMQ) from T1 to T2 (i.e., pre to post-program). Changes in wellbeing were statistically significantly positively related to changes in describing r(30) = .42, p = 0.015, acting with awareness r(30) = .41, p = .020, and non-reactivity to inner experience r(30) = .47, p = .006, meaning participants who showed an increase in mindfulness facets describing, acting with awareness, and non-reactivity to inner experience were also more likely to see an increase in mental wellbeing following the program. There was no statistically significant correlations between wellbeing and non-judging of inner experience (Table 4).

Table 4. Pearson Correlations between mindfulness facets and wellbeing.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. WEMWBS	–
2. FFMQ-D	.42*	–
3. FFMQ-AA	.41*	.40*	–
4. FFMQ-NJ	.21	.35*	.43*	–
5. FFMQ-NR	.47**	.31	.21	.37*	–

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Discussion

The present study explored the impact of a mindfulness-based wellness program (WP) on teachers during the first months of a national lockdown in New Zealand due to COVID-19. The results suggested that WP had significant positive effects on teachers’ wellbeing. The post program scores showed statistically significant improvements in mental wellbeing and although the three months follow-up results did not reach statistical significance, the eta squared showed that the effect size over time was large. This is consistent with emerging evidence regarding the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in improving components of wellbeing such as positivity or coping (Beshai et al., 2016; Flook et al., 2013). Given the high levels of stress and burnout reported by teachers and captured in the emerging COVID-19 literature, the findings of this study point to a promising workplace intervention that may be capable of supporting teachers.

Additionally, the results showed statistically significant increases in all four dimensions of mindfulness analyzed, with large effect sizes that continued at three-months follow up. This suggests WP supported participants in developing the ability to put their experience into words; to be in the present moment and act with awareness; to recognize their thoughts, emotions, and states; and accept them with equanimity and non-reactivity. These findings are consistent with literature on MBIs’ affect teacher stress (Roeser et al., 2013), burnout (Flook et al., 2013), and wellbeing (Beshai et al., 2016), pointing to MBIs beneficial effects even during a global pandemic, which had not previously been investigated.

Furthermore, the scores on all four mindfulness facets increased at three months’ follow-up, suggesting that WP effect on teachers and the mindfulness skills they acquired continued to develop after program completion. This is significant given that in order to combat the habitual patterns of thinking and reacting that cause chronic stress, consistency in practice is required. The current findings show WP may be promising in supporting teachers to develop that consistency. Meiklejohn et al. (2012) suggested that teachers who have an established mindfulness practice might be better equipped to teach their students. Similarly, Bernay (2014) and Jennings (2011, 2015a, 2015b) advocated that mindfulness skills can support teachers in creating supportive and effective learning environments for their students. A randomized control trial would be required in order to further test the impact of WP over time.

In the present study, increases in all mindfulness facets except non-judging of inner experience were positively correlated with increases in mental wellbeing. This is consistent with other studies that explored this relationship using different MBIs (Josefsson, Larsman, Broberg, & Lundh, 2011; Lee et al., 2022; Zollars, Poirier, & Pailden, 2019). It is not clear why there is no statistically significant correlation between non-judging of inner experience and mindfulness in the present study, especially because the qualitative data collected during the intervention, and discussed elsewhere (Toma, Rubie-Davies, & Le Fevre, 2022), suggests that participants experienced an improved relationship with themselves, becoming more accepting of their emotions. We could hypothesize that the questions measuring this mindfulness facet might have employed words that did not fully resonate with participants’ lived experience, making them less aware of changes in this dimension.

On a final note, it is important to ascertain that any workplace intervention such as the Wellbeing Protocol is not designed to be a panacea to stressors arising from poor work design or management. The organizational context and factors within it that cause chronic stress require school leadership attention and action. It was beyond the scope of this study to capture those organizational psychological hazards, such as high workload, low resources, and poor support from supervisor. It is nonetheless imperative to note that these aspects of work can cause psychological and physical harm and they need to be addressed at an organizational level and not solely through mindfulness-based interventions.

Strengths and limitations

This study possessed a number of strengths. First, as mentioned above, there are to date no other studies that explore the impact of an MBI on teachers during a global pandemic outbreak in New Zealand or elsewhere, so this study addresses a gap in the literature. Second, there are very few studies investigating modified MBIs in the workplace and this study examined the impact of a short MBI adapted to fit into a busy teacher schedule. Third, the promising positive impact as evidenced by the large effect sizes on both measures point to a firm basis for further research. A final strength worth mentioning is the content of the intervention, which was informed by mindfulness-based stress reduction (Stahl & Goldstein, 2010), cognitive therapy (Crane, 2009), and mainstream adaptations (Williams & Penman, 2011).

There were also several limitations. The sample was small and relatively homogenous (mostly female), suggesting the need to investigate the impact of this program in larger samples representative of the teacher population and different age groups. Additionally, the lack of a control group restricted our ability to rule out the influence of confounding variables on the results. A control group was not used due to the small volunteer pool and their expressed desire to receive the intervention immediately to help cope with the stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic outbreak. Further, the study relied on self-report measures, which are subjective and open to influence by response bias (Howard & Dailey, 1979). Future research could employ a greater variety of methods to assess wellbeing and stress, such as adrenal hormone dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), heart rate variability, or salivary cortisol.

Conclusion

Addressing teacher stress is becoming a priority especially in the post-pandemic workplace. As awareness that teachers with poor mental wellbeing are unable to create engaging learning environments grows (Beshai et al., 2016; Hwang, Noh, Medvedev, & Singh, 2019), the need to provide suitable teacher training to promote wellbeing becomes all the more acute. The findings of the current study suggest that the Wellbeing Protocol might be a promising option. It is important however to acknowledge that such interventions are not a panacea. Assessing what factors in the work environment cause chronic teacher stress and eliminating or minimizing them at an organizational level is imperative in order to ensure teacher and student wellbeing.

Ethics approval

Approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.