COVID-19 pandemic-related anxiety,stress,and depression among teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

As millions of teachers have been forced to rely upon remote teaching due to the closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is particularly important to understand the extent to which teacher’s psychological wellbeing has been affected by this global health crisis.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was twofold: 1) ascertain the prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among teachers during the COVID-19 outbreak; 2) identify the associated factors of these psychological wellbeing domains of the teachers.

METHODS:

Academic Search Premier, Eric, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles published from December 2019 and July 2021, using search terms including “COVID-19” “anxiety” “depression” “stress”, and “teachers”.

RESULTS:

This study included 54 studies synthesising data from 256,896 teachers across 22 countries. The meta-analysis showed higher prevalence of stress (62.6%, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 46.1–76.6), compared to anxiety (36.3%, 95% CI: 28.5–44.9) and depression (59.9%, 95% CI: 43.4–74.4) among teachers. Teachers’ experiences of these psychological issues were associated with various socio-demographic and institutional factors, including gender, nature of online teaching, job satisfaction, teaching experience, and the volume of workload. Additionally, several protective factors, such as regular exercises and provision of technical support for online teaching, reduced teachers’ negative psychological experiences.

CONCLUSION:

There is a need for authorities to formulate educational policies to improve teachers’ wellbeing at the time of global crisis. Special attention should be paid to assist female teachers in overcoming physical and mental stressors.

Keywords

Mental health prevalence risk factors COVID-19

1 Introduction

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan City, Hubei province, China. With the exponential growth of the infected people in many countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency and announced COVID-19 as a global pandemic in March 2020 [1]. This extremely contagious disease has not only posed a threat to human health, but also put the healthcare systems of various countries to an unprecedented test. It further caused immediate and irreversible disruptions to virtually all other social spheres, the education sector is not an exception.

As one of the countermeasures of containing the spread of COVID-19 and decelerating the progression of the pandemic, most countries have halted face-to-face teaching and closed schools at all levels, forcing millions of teachers and students to rely upon remote teaching as the approach to learning overnight. Currently, teachers face challenges with adapting their approaches with pedagogy, or the art and science of teaching [2]. Examples of strategies being reviewed and transformed include establishing online teaching environments, supporting students’ academic development and well-being without physical contact, as well as navigating other predicaments in daily lives. Thus, it is not surprising that recent research from the education and healthcare field showed teachers at different educational levels are experiencing varying degrees of psychological and emotional disruptions during this challenging time. Additionally, much research conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic had emphasised the importance of maintaining and improving teachers’ psychological wellbeing at work; as it plays a significant role in promoting teachers’ professional engagement, such as work-related satisfaction [3], work commitment [4], quality of teacher-student interaction [5] among others, which in turn, impacts on students’ learning and developmental outcomes [6]. Thus, it is particularly important to understand the extent to which teacher’s psychological wellbeing has been affected by the global health crisis and its associated factors. Investigating these topics will support development of psychological interventions and appropriate policies as a way forward to empower teachers overcome the many difficulties they face.

1.1 Teachers’ anxiety, depression and stress

Anxiety is defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) as “an emotion characterized by feelings of tension, worried thoughts and physical changes such as increased blood pressure” [102]. The definition highlights that people who are experiencing anxiety could develop a range of other psychological and/or physical issues. Research done prior to the Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that anxiety is a widely reported psychological health problem among teachers. In Australia for instance, one recent study found that over half (62%) of the Australian teachers suffered from moderate to severe levels of anxiety, a rate higher than the average Australians [7]. Although no consensus has been reached in regard to the exact causes of one’s anxiety symptoms, the current literature has documented a wide variety of environmental, biological, and psychological factors contributing to teachers’ perceived anxiety [8]. For example, Jones-Rincon and Howard’s [101] investigation revealed a range of demographic, occupational, and psychosocial factors associated with anxiety in a group of American public-school teachers. One recent literature review attributed teachers’ high levels of anxiety primarily to their use of educational technology in the classroom [9]. Given the wide prevalence of and the various internal and external factors potentially leading to teachers’ anxiety, it has become a common awareness among practitioners, policymakers, and researchers that measures must be taken to help teachers mitigate the harmful effects of anxiety on their educational practices. In the current literature, teachers’ anxiety has been linked to negative effects not only on themselves such as lowered self-efficacy about teaching [10] but also on the academic performance of students they teach [11].

Depression is a major mental health problem that threatens the global community [1, 12]. It is estimated that 5% of adults globally suffer from depression [1], in which teachers are the population group more vulnerable to depression than any other profession. A survey by Whitaker et al. [13] found that female teachers of early childhood education in the United States are more prone to poor mental health conditions than other women working in other professions. Additionally, a mixed- method study by Stapleton et al. [7] found that mental health disorders including depression are more prevalent among Australian teachers than the general population. As with its symptoms, the antecedents of teacher depression are also complex and vary across individuals. Karasek (1979 cited in [14]) theorizes that depression experienced by workers can be explained through its association with the level of work demand, control over work conditions, and the availability of supports. Other researchers report various personal and work-related factors that contribute to teacher poor mental health issues such as depression. The personal factors include young age and ‘adult-centred’ beliefs about learning [15], low self- and collective efficacy [16], and trauma from adverse childhood experience and level of spirituality [17]. The workplace related factors include long working hours, low pay, and discordant parent-teacher communication [18]. Teachers with depressive symptoms are unable to perform well in their profession. Researchers suggest adverse effects of teacher depression on the quality learning environment, which manifested as high absenteeism [13], poor communication with children [19], poor learning outcomes [6] and childhood social-emotional development [20].

Kyriacou [21] considers “teacher stress” as an independent construct and described it as the negative physiological changes of teachers caused by the exceeding demands associated with the role of being a teacher. Teaching has been regarded as one of the most stressful occupations [22]; there were approximately 30% of teachers reported under severe stress [23]. However, the level of stress varies across the teaching career, with teachers at their early career stages being more likely to experience a higher level of stress [22]. Prior literature investigated the sources of teacher stress with a variety of theoretical conceptions [21]. Among these, student-related factors (e.g., misbehaviors), working condition factors (e.g., relationships with colleagues and school administration), and teacher related factors (e.g., the ability to participate in decision-making process) were frequently reported [24]. The severity of teacher stress could increase the possibility of teachers’ experience of negative emotion, physical and attitudinal exhaustion [[25]), which in turn might increase their intention to leave the profession [26]. It could also affect students’ academic achievements by influencing the atmosphere of classroom and the extent to which teachers assist their students [27]. Additionally, significant associations have been found between teacher stress and students’ mental health [24].

In addition to the psychological issues identified above, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to worsen the teachers’ negative experiences. However, the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teachers, including its associated factors, has not yet been systematically reported. To address this knowledge gap, we set out to conduct this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to: 1) ascertain the prevalence of the COVID-19 outbreak on the prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among teachers and; 2) identify the associated factors of these psychological wellbeing domains of the teachers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research to systematically synthesize the rapid-increasing body of literature examining the ramification of COVID-19 on teachers’ wellbeing, and discuss the potential implication on teaching and education.

2 Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the prevalence and associated factors of anxiety, depression and stress among teachers globally. The reporting of the review was guided by the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-PRISMA [28].

2.1 Eligibility criteria

We included primary studies reporting empirical data; quantitative in nature, assessing anxiety, depression, or stress (physical or mental) or a combination of any of the three constructs; studies with a focus on teachers or education from any level; studies conducted in the context of COVID-19. Studies were also included if they assessed the general population but separated the analysis for teachers. Additionally, studies were included if they assessed overall teachers’ wellbeing but separated the findings on anxiety, depression or stress. Research papers were excluded if they were review studies; assess population other than teachers; conducted before the outbreak of COVID-19; and studies assessing constructs other than anxiety, depression or stress. No restriction to study designs was applied.

2.2 Search strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in June - July 2021 by the second author. Five academic databases were searched to identify relevant studies: Academic Search Premier, Eric, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science. We used keywords and their synonyms to identify all relevant studies using appropriate Boolean operators: (COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR Coronavirus OR “coronavirus pandemic”) AND (anxiety OR “anxiety symptoms”) AND (depression OR “depressive symptoms”) AND (stress OR stressor^* OR “stress symptoms”) AND (teachers OR educators OR instructors). The first author conducted a supplemental search on google scholar and searched the reference list of the relevant studies identified in the key databases to ensure all eligible studies were included. The search was narrowed to studies published in the English language between December 2019 and July 2021.

2.3 Selection criteria

The first and the second author screened all studies identified through the database search in line with the eligibility criteria. The screening was conducted in two stages. First, the titles and abstracts of the articles were screened to identify studies that potentially met the criteria. Second, the full texts of articles that potentially met the criteria were examined in detail to identify the studies that fully met the eligibility criteria. All included studies were cross-checked by the third author to ensure eligibility.

2.4 Data extraction

We extracted data from the included studies using Microsoft Excel that was designed for this review. The data extracted included authors’ details, aims of the review/research question(s), study design, number of participants, type of participants (primary school, secondary school, higher institution or mixed), sampling technique, primary outcome assessed (anxiety, stress, depression), data collection instrument used, key findings and authors’ conclusion. The extraction was conducted independently by the first and the second author.

Differences were resolved through discussion and where agreement was not reached, the third author was involved. All extracted data was cross-checked by the third author to ensure no relevant information was missing.

2.5 Quality assessment of included studies

Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for cross-sectional studies [29]. The instrument consists of 8 items assessing different aspects of a cross-sectional study, each with the option ‘Yes’ ‘No’ ‘Unclear’, and ‘Not Applicable’ [29]. The appraisal was conducted independently by two authors (the first and second author). The outcome from the two authors was cross-checked by the third author, and all discrepancies were resolved. We categorised studies that met 6–8 criteria as high quality, 3–5 criteria as middle quality and 0–2 as low quality.

2.6 Data analysis

The study findings with respect to both prevalence and associated factors were first narratively synthesised. The synthesis was conducted in line with the study aim, of which a detailed examination of the numeric and textual findings, as well as the conclusion reached in each study, was considered. The prevalence was reported as a significant or non-significant result. Where such classification was not made, an overall prevalence (not classified as significant or non-significant), was reported. The comparison was reported as ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’ between different categories of teachers or concerning teachers’ gender.

Findings with sufficient data on prevalence (percentages) were pooled for meta-analysis to compute the overall proportion of anxiety, depression and stress among the teachers. Meta-analysis was not conducted on the associated factors because none of the included studies specifically examined these factors but were reported alongside the prevalence of the primary outcomes (anxiety, depression and stress).

The meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software CMA version 2.3 (Englewood, New Jersey, USA). Considerable heterogeneity was expected considering the fact that the included studies were conducted across different countries and among different populations. For this reason, the meta- analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, with percentage as the pool effect size at 95% Confidence Interval (CI). I2 was used to describe the percentage of total variation caused by heterogeneity among the included studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger’s linear regression test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3 Results

3.1 Included studies selection

The initial database search yielded 817 papers; of these, 273 papers were excluded for duplication. The title and abstract of the remaining 544 studies were examined against the selection criteria, of which 487 studies were excluded for not meeting the criteria. The full texts of the resulting 57 papers were retrieved. Search in Google Scholar resulted in 3 additional relevant studies, of which the full text was also retrieved. As such, the full text of 60 studies were screened against the eligibility criteria, of which 49 studies fully met the criteria.

Manual search of the reference list of the 49 eligible studies resulted in 5 additional relevant studies. This resulted in 54 studies that were included in this review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

PRISMA diagram.

3.2 General characteristics of the included studies

The 54 included studies synthesized data from 256,896 teachers. These studies were predominantly cross-sectional (N = 51) while two studies [30, 31] applied a pre- and post- design, and one study [32] conducted repeated measurements. The majority (N = 31) involved school teachers, while 12 studies involved university teachers. Others (N = 7) included both school teachers and university teachers, whereas four studies did not specify the teaching levels of their participants. The studies were conducted in China (N = 8), Italy (N = 6), The United States (N = 4), Spain (N = 4), Turkey (N = 3), Canada (N = 2), and Chile (N = 2). One study each was conducted in Australia, Ecuador, Brazil, India, Israel, Greece, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia and United Kingdom (UK). Three studies included participants from multiple countries and four studies did not specify the nationality of the participants. (Table 1).

Table 1
Characteristics of the included studies (N = 54)

No Reference Sample size Gender Age Population Outcome measures used Outcome variable Study location

1 Abilleira 2021 N = 239 Male/Female ratio = 46.6% /53.4%; M = 47.03, SD = 10.17; Age range:26–69; University teachers Technostress questionnaire; Salanova questionnaire Stress Spain

2 Akour 2020 N = 382 Male = 212; Female = 170; Mean age 43.9 (9.9); Age range: 25–75; University teachers Arabic version of the Kessler Distress Scale (K10) Stress Jordan

3 Ali 2021 N = 670 Male/Female ratio = 69% /31%; N/A University teachers DASS-21 Stress Pakistan

4 Allen 2020 N = 8000 N/A N/A School teachers (Primary + Secondary) One item on anxiety Anxiety UK

5 Alqabbani 2020 N = 401 N/A N/A University teachers GAD-7 Anxiety Saudi Arabic

6 Alves 2021 N = 1479 Male = 317; Female = 1162; Mean age = 51.34 (7.27); Age range:26–68; School teacher (Primary + Secondary) One item on anxiety; One item on stress Anxiety; Stress Portugal

7 Amaral-Prado 2020 N = 78 N/A N/A University teacher PHQ; The Perceived Stress Scale Depression; Stress Brazil

8 Anderson 2021 N = 57 Male = 12; Female = 45; N/A School teachers (K-12) Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale Academic Buoyancy Scale Stress USA

9 Aperribai 2020 N = 345 Male = 80; Female = 264; 1 = N/A Mean age = 44.62, SD = 9.53; School teachers (Primary + Secondary) Spanish version of GHQ-2 Anxiety; Depression Spain

10 Auger 2021 N = 63 Male = 28; Female = 35; Mean age = 47.85, SD = 10.96; University teachers One item for anxiety Anxiety USA

11 Baker 2021 N = 454 Male = 74; Female = 366; 14 = N/A Mean age = N/A; Age range: 18–64; School teachers (Primary + Secondary) 18-item stress inventory Stress USA

12 Besser 2020 N = 313 Male = 156; Female = 157; Mean age = 49.60, SD = 11.42; University teachers One item on current stress; One item on general stress Stress Israel

13 Bigras 2021 N = 372 N/A Age range: 18–61; Early childhood teachers 6 items on work, current stress levels and evolution of stress levels Stress Canada

14 Casacchia 2021 N = 97 Male = 50; Female = 47; Mean age = 56.13, SD = 10.5; University teachers BDI Depression Italy

15 Casimiro Urcos 2020 N = 207 Male/Female = 48.3% /51.7%; N/A University teachers Items on anxiety; Items on stress 49 Casimiro Urcos 2020

16 Cheng 2021 N = 120 Male = 27; Female = 93; Mean age = 8.92, SD = 7.26; School teachers (K-12) GAD-7; A shortened version of the Chinese Teacher Stress Questionnaire Anxiety; Stress; China

17 Çifçi 2020 N = 663 Male = 203; Female = 460; Mean age = 37.05 (9.87); Age range: 18–60; School teachers and pre-service teachers Turkish version of Status Anxiety Inventory Anxiety Turkey

18 Collie 2021 N = 325 Male/Female = 31% /67%; N/A = 2%; Mean age = 39, SD = 12; School teachers One item on stress Stress Australia

19 Estrada-Muñoz 2021 N = 3006 Male/Female = 27.4% /71.7%; N/A = 1%; Mean age = 44.4 (Median = 43) Teachers (Primary + Secondary + Adult education) Instrument for technostress (RED-TIC) Stress Chile

20 Fan 2021 N = 1650 Male/Female = 47.54% /52.46%; Mean age = 40.28, SD = 8.3; University teachers Chinese version of the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) Stress China

21 Gupta 2021 N = 45 Male = 18; Female = 27; N/A Teachers (K-12 + university teachers) One item on stress Stress India

22 Hidalgo-Andrade 2021 N = 394 Male = 224; Female = 168; Mean age = 43.4, SD = 9.89; Age range:23–70; Teachers (Majority being university teachers(n = 351) Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10; Clinical Outcomes in Routine-Evaluation-10; PSS-10; Anxiety; Depression; Stress Ecuador

23 Hong 2021 N = 718 Male = 0; Female = 718; Mean age = N/A; Age range: Majority (80.7%) 30–49; Early childhood teachers Chinese Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF-15) Stress China

24 Jelinska 2021 N = 804 Male = 215; Female = 578; N/A = 11; Mean age = 44.1, SD = 12.5; Age range: Over 50%, 36–55; University teachers and administrators Situational Anxiety Scale Anxiety 92 countries

25 Karaşar 2020 N = 140 N/A N/A Educator BDI in Turkish Depression Turkey

26 Kayabınar 2021 N = 41 Male = 9; Female = 31; Mean age = 39.85, SD = 11.78; Age range:25–61; School teachers BAI; BDI in Turkish Anxiety; Depression Turkey

27 Klapproth 2020 N = 380 Male = 293; Female = 86; N/A = 1 Mean age = 43.7, SD = 10.6; School teachers (Primary + Secondary + Special education) One item on stress Stress Germany

28 Košir 2020 N = 874 Male/Female = 12.2/87.8 N/A School teachers and school counsellors (Primary + Secondary) PSS-10 Stress NA

29 Kumawatt 2020 N = 194 N/A Mean age = N/A; Age range:25–50 + ; School teachers (not specified) PSS-10 Stress India

30 Li 2020 N = 88611 Male = 20442; Female = 68169; Mean age = 36.22, SD = 9.02; Teachers (school + university) GAD-7 Anxiety China

31 Li 2021 N = 67357 Male = 17450; Female = 49907; Mean age (of male)=41.33, SD = 9.67; Mean age (of female)=34.69, SD = 8.23; Teachers (school and university) GAD-7 Anxiety China

32 Loziak 2020 N = 103 Male = 0; Female = 103; N/A School teachers (Primary + Secondary) Teacher Stresser Questionnaire; PSS-10 Stress Slovakia

33 MacIntyre 2020 N = 634 Male/Female = 20% /80% approximately; Mean age = n/a; School language teachers (Primary + Secondary) State Anxiety: Stress Index Anxiety; Stress N/A

34 Mari 2021 N = 158 Male = 15; Female = 143; Mean age = N/A; Teachers (Not specified) PSS-10 Stress Italy

35 Matiz 2020 N = 58 Male = 0; Female = 58; Mean age = 50.8, SD = 8; School teachers (Early childhood + Primary + Secondary) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Italian Anxiety Italy

36 Miguel 2021 N = 51 Male = 35; Female = 16; Mean age = 48, SD = 1; Age range: 25–68; Teachers (Not specified) DASS-21 in Portuguese Anxiety; Depression; Stress Italy

37 Oducado 2021 N = 105 Male/Female ratioN = 15.2% /84.8% Mean age = 33.92, SD = 8.81; School teachers (Not specified) COVID-19 Perceived Stress Scale Stress Philippines

38 Ozamiz-Etxebarria 2021 N = 1633 Male = 330; Female = 1293; Mean age = 42.6, SD = 9.96; Teachers (School University) DASS-21 Anxiety; Depression; Stress; Spain

39 Palma-Vasquez 202 N = 278 Male/Female ratio = 18% /82%; Mean age = N/A; School teachers (Early childhood + Primary + Secondary) GHQ-12 Anxiety; Depression Chile

40 Prado-Gasco 2020 N = 421 Male/Female = 19.8% /80.2%; Mean age = 39.32, SD = 10.21; Age range: 24–60; School teachers (Not specified) Burnout Assessment Tool Stress Mexico and Spain

41 Pressley 2021 N = 359 N/A N/A School teachers (Not specified) COVID Anxiety Scale (CAS); Anxiety questions Anxiety; Stress USA

42 Rabaglietti 2021 N = 366 Male/Female ratio = 14% /86%; Mean age = 45.3, SD = 10.37; Age range:23–66; School teachers (Not specified) PSS Stress Italy and other EU countries

43 Santamaría 2021 N = 1633 Male = 330; Female = 1293; Mean age = 42.02, SD = 10.40; School teachers (Early childhood + Primary + Secondary) DASS-21 in Spanish Anxiety; Depression; Stress; Spain

44 Sheikh 2020 N = 200 Male = 83; Female = 117; Mean age = N/A; Age range: 25–60; School teachers (Not specified); PHQ Depression N/A

45 Sokal 2020a N = 1278 N/A N/A Teachers (Not specified) Stress Scale Stress Canada

46 Stachteas 2020 N = 226 Male/Female ratio = 36.7% /63.3% N/A School teachers (Secondary) One item on stress Stress Greece

47 Swigonski 2021 N = 145 Male/Female ratio = 2% /98%; Mean age = 46.8, Media N = 47; Early childhood teachers Kessler 6 item mental health index; Items on stress; Adapted Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Wellbeing Scale; Kaiser Family Foundation’s (KFF) Health Tracking Poll Stress USA

48 Toto 2021 N = 688 Male/Female ratio = 98.9% /1.1%; N/A School teachers (K-12) PSS-10 Translated into Italian; Stress Italy

49 Truzoli 2021 N = 107 Male = 38; Female = 69; Mean age = 49.8, SD = 10.1; School teachers (Secondary) Beck anxiety inventory; Depression scale (CES-D); Valutazione Rapida dello Stress (VRS) Anxiety; Depression; Stress Italy

50 Wakui 2021 N = 237 Male = 85; Female = 152; Mean age = 39.8, SD = 11.3; Age range:20–65; School teachers (Primary + Secondary) Items on anxiety; Psychometrically not tested Anxiety Japan

51 Zapata-Garibay 2021 N = 380 Male/Female ratio = 48.7% /51.3%; N/A University teachers Items on anxiety and depression from the stress ED-6 scale Anxiety; Depression; Mexico

52 Zhao 2020 N = 210 N/Q N/A School teachers (Primary + Secondary) The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) Anxiety China

53 Zhou 2020 N = 751 Male = 493; Female = 257; N/A = 1; Mean age = 40.02, SD = 8.40; School teachers (Primary + Secondary) DSM-5 Acute Stress Disorder Diagnostic Criteria B Stress China

54 Zhou 2021 N = 1096 Male = 225; Female = 871; N/A; Age range: 20–65; School teachers (College school + Secondary + others) PHQ; PSS-10 Depression; Stress China

Total N = 256,896 Male = 41,444 Female = 126,855

No	Reference	Sample size	Gender	Age	Population	Outcome measures used	Outcome variable	Study location
1	Abilleira 2021	N = 239	Male/Female ratio = 46.6% /53.4%;	M = 47.03, SD = 10.17; Age range:26–69;	University teachers	Technostress questionnaire; Salanova questionnaire	Stress	Spain
2	Akour 2020	N = 382	Male = 212; Female = 170;	Mean age 43.9 (9.9); Age range: 25–75;	University teachers	Arabic version of the Kessler Distress Scale (K10)	Stress	Jordan
3	Ali 2021	N = 670	Male/Female ratio = 69% /31%;	N/A	University teachers	DASS-21	Stress	Pakistan
4	Allen 2020	N = 8000	N/A	N/A	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	One item on anxiety	Anxiety	UK
5	Alqabbani 2020	N = 401	N/A	N/A	University teachers	GAD-7	Anxiety	Saudi Arabic
6	Alves 2021	N = 1479	Male = 317; Female = 1162;	Mean age = 51.34 (7.27); Age range:26–68;	School teacher (Primary + Secondary)	One item on anxiety; One item on stress	Anxiety; Stress	Portugal
7	Amaral-Prado 2020	N = 78	N/A	N/A	University teacher	PHQ; The Perceived Stress Scale	Depression; Stress	Brazil
8	Anderson 2021	N = 57	Male = 12; Female = 45;	N/A	School teachers (K-12)	Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale Academic Buoyancy Scale	Stress	USA
9	Aperribai 2020	N = 345	Male = 80; Female = 264; 1 = N/A	Mean age = 44.62, SD = 9.53;	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	Spanish version of GHQ-2	Anxiety; Depression	Spain
10	Auger 2021	N = 63	Male = 28; Female = 35;	Mean age = 47.85, SD = 10.96;	University teachers	One item for anxiety	Anxiety	USA
11	Baker 2021	N = 454	Male = 74; Female = 366; 14 = N/A	Mean age = N/A; Age range: 18–64;	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	18-item stress inventory	Stress	USA
12	Besser 2020	N = 313	Male = 156; Female = 157;	Mean age = 49.60, SD = 11.42;	University teachers	One item on current stress; One item on general stress	Stress	Israel
13	Bigras 2021	N = 372	N/A	Age range: 18–61;	Early childhood teachers	6 items on work, current stress levels and evolution of stress levels	Stress	Canada
14	Casacchia 2021	N = 97	Male = 50; Female = 47;	Mean age = 56.13, SD = 10.5;	University teachers	BDI	Depression	Italy
15	Casimiro Urcos 2020	N = 207	Male/Female = 48.3% /51.7%;	N/A	University teachers	Items on anxiety; Items on stress	49	Casimiro Urcos 2020
16	Cheng 2021	N = 120	Male = 27; Female = 93;	Mean age = 8.92, SD = 7.26;	School teachers (K-12)	GAD-7; A shortened version of the Chinese Teacher Stress Questionnaire	Anxiety; Stress;	China
17	Çifçi 2020	N = 663	Male = 203; Female = 460;	Mean age = 37.05 (9.87); Age range: 18–60;	School teachers and pre-service teachers	Turkish version of Status Anxiety Inventory	Anxiety	Turkey
18	Collie 2021	N = 325	Male/Female = 31% /67%; N/A = 2%;	Mean age = 39, SD = 12;	School teachers	One item on stress	Stress	Australia
19	Estrada-Muñoz 2021	N = 3006	Male/Female = 27.4% /71.7%; N/A = 1%;	Mean age = 44.4 (Median = 43)	Teachers (Primary + Secondary + Adult education)	Instrument for technostress (RED-TIC)	Stress	Chile
20	Fan 2021	N = 1650	Male/Female = 47.54% /52.46%;	Mean age = 40.28, SD = 8.3;	University teachers	Chinese version of the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R)	Stress	China
21	Gupta 2021	N = 45	Male = 18; Female = 27;	N/A	Teachers (K-12 + university teachers)	One item on stress	Stress	India
22	Hidalgo-Andrade 2021	N = 394	Male = 224; Female = 168;	Mean age = 43.4, SD = 9.89; Age range:23–70;	Teachers (Majority being university teachers(n = 351)	Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10; Clinical Outcomes in Routine-Evaluation-10; PSS-10;	Anxiety; Depression; Stress	Ecuador
23	Hong 2021	N = 718	Male = 0; Female = 718;	Mean age = N/A; Age range: Majority (80.7%) 30–49;	Early childhood teachers	Chinese Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF-15)	Stress	China
24	Jelinska 2021	N = 804	Male = 215; Female = 578; N/A = 11;	Mean age = 44.1, SD = 12.5; Age range: Over 50%, 36–55;	University teachers and administrators	Situational Anxiety Scale	Anxiety	92 countries
25	Karaşar 2020	N = 140	N/A	N/A	Educator	BDI in Turkish	Depression	Turkey
26	Kayabınar 2021	N = 41	Male = 9; Female = 31;	Mean age = 39.85, SD = 11.78; Age range:25–61;	School teachers	BAI; BDI in Turkish	Anxiety; Depression	Turkey
27	Klapproth 2020	N = 380	Male = 293; Female = 86; N/A = 1	Mean age = 43.7, SD = 10.6;	School teachers (Primary + Secondary + Special education)	One item on stress	Stress	Germany
28	Košir 2020	N = 874	Male/Female = 12.2/87.8	N/A	School teachers and school counsellors (Primary + Secondary)	PSS-10	Stress	NA
29	Kumawatt 2020	N = 194	N/A	Mean age = N/A; Age range:25–50 + ;	School teachers (not specified)	PSS-10	Stress	India
30	Li 2020	N = 88611	Male = 20442; Female = 68169;	Mean age = 36.22, SD = 9.02;	Teachers (school + university)	GAD-7	Anxiety	China
31	Li 2021	N = 67357	Male = 17450; Female = 49907;	Mean age (of male)=41.33, SD = 9.67; Mean age (of female)=34.69, SD = 8.23;	Teachers (school and university)	GAD-7	Anxiety	China
32	Loziak 2020	N = 103	Male = 0; Female = 103;	N/A	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	Teacher Stresser Questionnaire; PSS-10	Stress	Slovakia
33	MacIntyre 2020	N = 634	Male/Female = 20% /80% approximately;	Mean age = n/a;	School language teachers (Primary + Secondary)	State Anxiety: Stress Index	Anxiety; Stress	N/A
34	Mari 2021	N = 158	Male = 15; Female = 143;	Mean age = N/A;	Teachers (Not specified)	PSS-10	Stress	Italy
35	Matiz 2020	N = 58	Male = 0; Female = 58;	Mean age = 50.8, SD = 8;	School teachers (Early childhood + Primary + Secondary)	Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Italian	Anxiety	Italy
36	Miguel 2021	N = 51	Male = 35; Female = 16;	Mean age = 48, SD = 1; Age range: 25–68;	Teachers (Not specified)	DASS-21 in Portuguese	Anxiety; Depression; Stress	Italy
37	Oducado 2021	N = 105	Male/Female ratioN = 15.2% /84.8%	Mean age = 33.92, SD = 8.81;	School teachers (Not specified)	COVID-19 Perceived Stress Scale	Stress	Philippines
38	Ozamiz-Etxebarria 2021	N = 1633	Male = 330; Female = 1293;	Mean age = 42.6, SD = 9.96;	Teachers (School University)	DASS-21	Anxiety; Depression; Stress;	Spain
39	Palma-Vasquez 202	N = 278	Male/Female ratio = 18% /82%;	Mean age = N/A;	School teachers (Early childhood + Primary + Secondary)	GHQ-12	Anxiety; Depression	Chile
40	Prado-Gasco 2020	N = 421	Male/Female = 19.8% /80.2%;	Mean age = 39.32, SD = 10.21; Age range: 24–60;	School teachers (Not specified)	Burnout Assessment Tool	Stress	Mexico and Spain
41	Pressley 2021	N = 359	N/A	N/A	School teachers (Not specified)	COVID Anxiety Scale (CAS); Anxiety questions	Anxiety; Stress	USA
42	Rabaglietti 2021	N = 366	Male/Female ratio = 14% /86%;	Mean age = 45.3, SD = 10.37; Age range:23–66;	School teachers (Not specified)	PSS	Stress	Italy and other EU countries
43	Santamaría 2021	N = 1633	Male = 330; Female = 1293;	Mean age = 42.02, SD = 10.40;	School teachers (Early childhood + Primary + Secondary)	DASS-21 in Spanish	Anxiety; Depression; Stress;	Spain
44	Sheikh 2020	N = 200	Male = 83; Female = 117;	Mean age = N/A; Age range: 25–60;	School teachers (Not specified);	PHQ	Depression	N/A
45	Sokal 2020a	N = 1278	N/A	N/A	Teachers (Not specified)	Stress Scale	Stress	Canada
46	Stachteas 2020	N = 226	Male/Female ratio = 36.7% /63.3%	N/A	School teachers (Secondary)	One item on stress	Stress	Greece
47	Swigonski 2021	N = 145	Male/Female ratio = 2% /98%;	Mean age = 46.8, Media N = 47;	Early childhood teachers	Kessler 6 item mental health index; Items on stress; Adapted Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Wellbeing Scale; Kaiser Family Foundation’s (KFF) Health Tracking Poll	Stress	USA
48	Toto 2021	N = 688	Male/Female ratio = 98.9% /1.1%;	N/A	School teachers (K-12)	PSS-10 Translated into Italian;	Stress	Italy
49	Truzoli 2021	N = 107	Male = 38; Female = 69;	Mean age = 49.8, SD = 10.1;	School teachers (Secondary)	Beck anxiety inventory; Depression scale (CES-D); Valutazione Rapida dello Stress (VRS)	Anxiety; Depression; Stress	Italy
50	Wakui 2021	N = 237	Male = 85; Female = 152;	Mean age = 39.8, SD = 11.3; Age range:20–65;	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	Items on anxiety; Psychometrically not tested	Anxiety	Japan
51	Zapata-Garibay 2021	N = 380	Male/Female ratio = 48.7% /51.3%;	N/A	University teachers	Items on anxiety and depression from the stress ED-6 scale	Anxiety; Depression;	Mexico
52	Zhao 2020	N = 210	N/Q	N/A	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS)	Anxiety	China
53	Zhou 2020	N = 751	Male = 493; Female = 257; N/A = 1;	Mean age = 40.02, SD = 8.40;	School teachers (Primary + Secondary)	DSM-5 Acute Stress Disorder Diagnostic Criteria B	Stress	China
54	Zhou 2021	N = 1096	Male = 225; Female = 871;	N/A; Age range: 20–65;	School teachers (College school + Secondary + others)	PHQ; PSS-10	Depression; Stress	China
Total		N = 256,896	Male = 41,444 Female = 126,855

Note. SD = Standard Deviation; N/A = Not applicable; GAD: Generalised Anxiety Disorder; DASS-21: Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; GHQ: Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire; PHQ: Patient Health Questionnaire; PSS-10: Perceived Stress Scale-10.

3.3 Quality assessment outcome

The 54 included studies (Table 2) met various criteria of the JBI checklist used (Table 2). The majority of the studies (47) demonstrated a medium quality, with their scores ranging from 3 to 5, of which 10 (18.5%) and 37 (68.5%) of the studies met 3 and 4 criteria (out of the total of 8), respectively. Six studies (11.1%) were of low quality (met 0–2 criteria). Only 1 study met high-quality criteria (6–8 criteria).

Table 2
Quality assessment (N = 54)

No Reference Criterion1 Criterion2 Criterion3 Criterion4 Criterion5 Criterion6 Criterion7 Criterion8 Overall

1 Abilleira 2021 Y^a Y U^c U U U Y Y 4

2 Akour 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

3 Ali 2021 Y N U U U U Y Y 3

4 Allen 2020 Y N U U U U N N 1

5 Alqabbani 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

6 Alves 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

7 Amaral-Prado 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

8 Anderson ect 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

9 Aperribai 2020 N^b Y U U U U Y Y 3

10 Auger 2021 N Y U U U U N Y 2

11 Baker 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

12 Besser 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

13 Bigras 2021 Y Y U U U U N Y 3

14 Casacchia 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

15 Casimiro Urcos 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

16 Cheng 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

17 Çifçi 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

18 Collie 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

19 Estrada-Muñoz 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

20 Fan 2021 Y Y Y U U U Y Y 4

21 Gupta 2021 Y N U U U U N Y 2

22 Hidalgo-Andrade 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

23 Hong 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

24 Jelinska 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

25 Karaşar 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

26 Kayabınar 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

27 Klapproth 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

28 Košir 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

29 Kumawatt 2020 Y N U U U U Y Y 3

30 Li 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

31 Li 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

32 Loziak 2020 N Y U U U U Y N 2

33 MacIntyre 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

34 Mari 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

35 Matiz 2020 Y Y U U Y Y Y Y 6

36 Miguel 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

37 Oducado 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

38 Ozamiz-Etxebarria 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

39 Palma-Vasquez 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

40 Prado-Gasco 2020 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

41 Pressley 2021 Y N U U U U Y Y 3

42 Rabaglietti 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

43 Santamaría 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

44 Sheikh 2020 Y N U U U U N Y 2

45 Sokal 2020a Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

46 Stachteas 2020 Y Y U U U U N Y 3

47 Swigonski 2021 Y Y U U U U N Y 3

48 Toto 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

49 Truzoli 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

50 Wakui 2021 Y Y U U U U N Y 3

51 Zapata-Garibay 2021 Y Y U U U U Y N 3

52 Zhao 2020 Y N U U U U N Y 2

53 Zhou 2020 Y N U U U U Y Y 3

54 Zhou 2021 Y Y U U U U Y Y 4

No	Reference	Criterion1	Criterion2	Criterion3	Criterion4	Criterion5	Criterion6	Criterion7	Criterion8	Overall
1	Abilleira 2021	Y^a	Y	U^c	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
2	Akour 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
3	Ali 2021	Y	N	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	3
4	Allen 2020	Y	N	U	U	U	U	N	N	1
5	Alqabbani 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
6	Alves 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
7	Amaral-Prado 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
8	Anderson ect 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
9	Aperribai 2020	N^b	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	3
10	Auger 2021	N	Y	U	U	U	U	N	Y	2
11	Baker 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
12	Besser 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
13	Bigras 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	N	Y	3
14	Casacchia 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
15	Casimiro Urcos 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
16	Cheng 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
17	Çifçi 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
18	Collie 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
19	Estrada-Muñoz 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
20	Fan 2021	Y	Y	Y	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
21	Gupta 2021	Y	N	U	U	U	U	N	Y	2
22	Hidalgo-Andrade 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
23	Hong 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
24	Jelinska 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
25	Karaşar 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
26	Kayabınar 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
27	Klapproth 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
28	Košir 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
29	Kumawatt 2020	Y	N	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	3
30	Li 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
31	Li 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
32	Loziak 2020	N	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	N	2
33	MacIntyre 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
34	Mari 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
35	Matiz 2020	Y	Y	U	U	Y	Y	Y	Y	6
36	Miguel 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
37	Oducado 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
38	Ozamiz-Etxebarria 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
39	Palma-Vasquez 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
40	Prado-Gasco 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
41	Pressley 2021	Y	N	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	3
42	Rabaglietti 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
43	Santamaría 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
44	Sheikh 2020	Y	N	U	U	U	U	N	Y	2
45	Sokal 2020a	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
46	Stachteas 2020	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	N	Y	3
47	Swigonski 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	N	Y	3
48	Toto 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
49	Truzoli 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4
50	Wakui 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	N	Y	3
51	Zapata-Garibay 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	N	3
52	Zhao 2020	Y	N	U	U	U	U	N	Y	2
53	Zhou 2020	Y	N	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	3
54	Zhou 2021	Y	Y	U	U	U	U	Y	Y	4

Note. ^aY indicates Yes; ^bN indicates No, ^cU indicates not applicable.

3.4 Anxiety

3.4.1 Prevalence of anxiety among teachers during COVID-19

Altogether, twenty-two studies (N = 22) assessed anxiety or its related symptoms among teachers (Table 3). Prevalence of anxiety among teachers ranged from 11.0%, (n = 3,006) [33] to 99.1% (n = 207) [34]. 12 out of the 22 studies provided sufficient data for conducting the meta-analysis, which revealed a pooled prevalence of anxiety of 36.3% (95% CI: 28.5–44.9) (Fig. 2). However, there was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 99.74, p < 0.001).

Table 3
Prevalence of anxiety

Outcome measures Reference Significance of anxiety Effect size/comment

Significant Non-significant Overall (not classified)

General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) Alqabbani et al. 2020 ✓ 61.4%, N = 401

Cheng and Lam 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 1.87 (0.86), N = 120

Li et al. 2020 ✓ 13.67% (SE = 0.12%), N = 88611

Li et al. 2021 ✓ 13.51%, N = 67,357

Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) Kayabınar et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 9.78 (7.39), N = 40

Truzoli et al. 2021 ✓ 25.23%, N = 107

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21) Miguel et al. 2021 ✓ 15.7%, N = 51

Santamaría et al. 2021 ✓ 75.1%, N = 800

Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 2021 ✓ 49.5%, N = 1633

Ali et al. 2021 ✓ 85%, N = 670

RED-TIC Estrada-Muñoz et al. 2021 ✓ 11%, N = 3006

GHQ-12 Aperribai et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 2.08 (0.89), N = 345

PSWbPSTP Alves et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) for males (3.78±0.86) and females (3.90±0.84) Assessed as anxiety and stress. No overall estimate.

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Matiz et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 6.12 (3.98), N = 26 (High-resilience group); Mean (SD) = 9.69 (3.41), N = 32 (Low-resilience group). t = 3.62, Total N = 58

COVID Anxiety Scale Pressley 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 3.17 (3.57), N = 359

Status Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I) Çifçi and Demir 2020 ✓ No overall estimate reported

Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) Zhao et al. 2020 ✓ 17.2%, N = 134

Self-developed Auger and Formentine 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 4.50 (1.98), N = 63

Self-developed Allen et al. 2020 ✓ 13%, N = 8,000 (an estimated total)

Self-developed Casimiro Urcos et al. 2020 ✓ 99.1%, N = 207

Self-developed Jelinska and Paradowski 2021 ✓ Correlation with negative affect r = 0.47, R² = 0.22, 95% CI=0.17-0.29, N = 804

Self-developed Wakui et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 3.95 (0.84) (infection-related anxiety); Mean (SD) = 3.66 (0.81) (education-related anxiety), N = 237

Outcome measures	Reference	Significance of anxiety
General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)	Alqabbani et al. 2020		✓	61.4%, N = 401
	Cheng and Lam 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 1.87 (0.86), N = 120
	Li et al. 2020		✓	13.67% (SE = 0.12%), N = 88611
	Li et al. 2021		✓	13.51%, N = 67,357
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)	Kayabınar et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 9.78 (7.39), N = 40
	Truzoli et al. 2021		✓	25.23%, N = 107
Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21)	Miguel et al. 2021		✓	15.7%, N = 51
	Santamaría et al. 2021		✓	75.1%, N = 800
	Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 2021		✓	49.5%, N = 1633
	Ali et al. 2021		✓	85%, N = 670
RED-TIC	Estrada-Muñoz et al. 2021		✓	11%, N = 3006
GHQ-12	Aperribai et al. 2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 2.08 (0.89), N = 345
PSWbPSTP	Alves et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) for males (3.78±0.86) and females (3.90±0.84) Assessed as anxiety and stress. No overall estimate.
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)	Matiz et al. 2020	✓		Mean (SD) = 6.12 (3.98), N = 26 (High-resilience group); Mean (SD) = 9.69 (3.41), N = 32 (Low-resilience group). t = 3.62, Total N = 58
COVID Anxiety Scale	Pressley 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 3.17 (3.57), N = 359
Status Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I)	Çifçi and Demir 2020		✓	No overall estimate reported
Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS)	Zhao et al. 2020		✓	17.2%, N = 134
Self-developed	Auger and Formentine 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 4.50 (1.98), N = 63
Self-developed	Allen et al. 2020		✓	13%, N = 8,000 (an estimated total)
Self-developed	Casimiro Urcos et al. 2020		✓	99.1%, N = 207
Self-developed	Jelinska and Paradowski 2021		✓	Correlation with negative affect r = 0.47, R² = 0.22, 95% CI=0.17-0.29, N = 804
Self-developed	Wakui et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 3.95 (0.84) (infection-related anxiety); Mean (SD) = 3.66 (0.81) (education-related anxiety), N = 237

Fig. 2

Forest plot indicating prevalence of anxiety among teachers.

About one-quarter (N = 14) of the included studies surveyed teachers from a range of education levels (e.g., from primary/elementary to secondary/high school). One (N = 1) and five (N = 5) studies specifically surveyed teachers from high schools and universities, respectively. Two (N = 2) studies did not provide detail about the education level at which teachers worked. The prevalence of teachers’ anxiety was significantly associated with their depressive symptoms [35] and their perceived stress [36, 37]. Anxiety-related symptoms reported include social dysfunction [38], fear of Covid-19 [36], psychological distress [39], food insecurity [38], lack of motivation [38], situational loneliness [41], negative affect [41], emotional distress [31], and teacher burnout [31 , 40].

3.4.2 Socio-demographic factors associated with teachers’ COVID-19-related anxiety

Demographic variables played significant roles in the prevalence of anxiety among teachers. Gender was the most reported variable, with most studies indicating higher levels of anxiety among female teachers compared to male teachers [33 , 47], except for one study indicating that male teachers were more anxious than female teachers about becoming infected with the virus [48]. Compared to students, experienced teachers were reported to show a lower level of anxiety [49]. Considering age, older teachers were more likely to develop anxiety symptoms [44, 46]. Additionally, higher levels of anxiety were reported if teachers were married [43]. Correspondingly, when teachers with college degrees were compared, those with Bachelor or Master’s degrees experienced more anxiety [44]. Moreover, when we consider the setting of schools, teachers in a rural or country school setting reported a reduced likelihood of developing anxiety, compared to those in city contexts [44].

3.4.3 Other associated factors of teachers’ COVID-19-related anxiety

Teachers’ level of job satisfaction [39, 50], self-efficacy [35], perceived effectiveness of emergency remote teaching [50], general attitudes toward emergency remote teaching [50], year of teaching experience [36], level of resilience [31], work stability [46] was found to be negatively associated with the levels of anxiety. On the contrary, fear of Covid-19 [36, 44], perceived stress [35 –37], general perceived negative affect [41], mask wearing practice [45], worries about themselves getting infected [21] and about students getting infected [48] were found to be positively associated with teachers’ anxiety level. In addition, the level of education the teachers taught was found negatively correlated with teachers’ anxiety level, with teachers teaching lower educational level (e.g., pre-primary stage) experienced more anxiety [44, 46] than those teaching higher educational level. However, Alves et al.’s [42] revealed an opposite correlation in which teachers at the lower education level experienced lower levels of anxiety symptoms. Other risk factors associated with increased odds of anxiety included: the change from off-line teaching to online-teaching mode [30]; teachers not knowing the proper way of mask-wearing [44]; not adhering to the proper behaviour of mask-wearing [44]; not adhering to all the three parameters of proper mask-wearing (i.e. wearing a mask whenever a person goes out, or in crowded areas or when taking public transportation) [44]; having chronic pathology or live with others with chronic pathology [47]. Protective factors associated with a decreased odds of experiencing anxiety included: practising healthy living routines [43, 44]; acquiring information regarding Covid-19 through mixed learning (compared to acquiring it through single learning source) [44]; and teaching more than one subject (compared to those teaching only music subject) [36].

3.5 Depression

3.5.1 Prevalence of depression among teachers during COVID-19

Fifteen studies (N = 15) assessed depression or its related symptoms among teachers (Table 4).

Table 4
Prevalence of depression

Outcome measures Reference Significance of depression Effect size/comment

Significant Non-significant Overall (not classified)

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Amaral-Prado et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) for males (10.16±0.42) and females (12.68±0.26), N = 893 (before COVID); Mean (SD) for males (9.74±0.69) and females (12.99±0.55), N = 242 (during COVID). No overall estimate reported.

Sheikh et al. 2020 ✓ 66.5%, N = 200

Zhou et al. 2021 ✓ 56.9%, N = 1096.

GHQ-12 Aperribai et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 1.91 (0.90), N = 345

Palma-Vasquez et al. 2021 ✓ 81.66%, N = 278. No separate report for depression and anxiety.

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Casacchia et al. 2021 ✓ 25.8%, N = 97

Karaşar and Canlı2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 8.67 (7.42), N = 140

Kayabınar et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 8.75 (6.40), N = 40

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21) Ali et al. 2021 ✓ 91%, N = 670

Miguel et al. 2021 ✓ 17.6%, N = 51

Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 2021 ✓ 32.2%, N = 1633

Santamaría et al. 2021 ✓ 60.5%, N = 522

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Matiz et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 3.00 (1.88), N = 26 (High-resilience group); Mean (SD) = 5.19 (2.47), N = 32 (Low-resilience group). t = 3.83, Total N = 58

Self-developed Stachteas and Stachteas 2020 ✓ 44.2 %, N = 226

Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) Truzoli et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 16.3 (9.5), N = 107

Outcome measures	Reference	Significance of depression
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)	Amaral-Prado et al. 2020	✓		Mean (SD) for males (10.16±0.42) and females (12.68±0.26), N = 893 (before COVID); Mean (SD) for males (9.74±0.69) and females (12.99±0.55), N = 242 (during COVID). No overall estimate reported.
	Sheikh et al. 2020		✓	66.5%, N = 200
	Zhou et al. 2021	✓		56.9%, N = 1096.
GHQ-12	Aperribai et al. 2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 1.91 (0.90), N = 345
	Palma-Vasquez et al. 2021		✓	81.66%, N = 278. No separate report for depression and anxiety.
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)	Casacchia et al. 2021		✓	25.8%, N = 97
	Karaşar and Canlı2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 8.67 (7.42), N = 140
	Kayabınar et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 8.75 (6.40), N = 40
Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21)	Ali et al. 2021		✓	91%, N = 670
	Miguel et al. 2021		✓	17.6%, N = 51
	Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 2021		✓	32.2%, N = 1633
	Santamaría et al. 2021		✓	60.5%, N = 522
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)	Matiz et al. 2020	✓		Mean (SD) = 3.00 (1.88), N = 26 (High-resilience group); Mean (SD) = 5.19 (2.47), N = 32 (Low-resilience group). t = 3.83, Total N = 58
Self-developed	Stachteas and Stachteas 2020		✓	44.2 %, N = 226
Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D)	Truzoli et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 16.3 (9.5), N = 107

Prevalence of depression among teachers ranged from 17.6%, (N = 51) [40] to 91.0% (N = 670) [39]. 8 out of the 15 studies provided sufficient data for conducting the meta-analysis, which revealed a pooled prevalence of depression of 59.9% (95% CI: 43.4–74.4) (Fig. 3). However, there was a significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 98.96, p < 0.001).

Fig. 3

Forest plot indicating prevalence of depression among teachers.

Among the included studies, a majority (N = 8) surveyed teachers from a range of education levels (e.g., from primary to secondary school). Two (N = 2) and four (N = 4) studies specifically surveyed teachers from secondary schools and universities, respectively. One (N = 1) study did not provide details about the education level at which teachers worked. Prevalence of teachers’ depression was significantly associated with their anxiety symptoms [35] and perceived stress [35 , 52]. Depression related symptoms reported include social dysfunction [38], emotional distress [31], psychological discomfort [53], and teacher burnout [31, 40].

3.5.2 Socio-demographic factors associated with teachers’ COVID-19-related depression

Among the demographic variables that have been examined in association with the prevalence of depression among teachers, gender was the most reported variable. Two studies indicate higher levels of depression among female teachers compared to male teachers [51, 54]. Teachers aged over 41 years were found more likely to feel depressed compared to those younger than that age [52]. Also, teachers who worked in private–subsidised schools were more likely to report depression comparing to those who worked in public schools [53]. When compared to university students, university employees and faculty members were found to show less severe depressive symptoms [51].

3.5.3 Other associated factors of teachers’ COVID-19-related depression

Teachers’ level of job satisfaction [39], resilience level [31], job stability [46], and self-efficacy [35] were found to be negatively associated with the perceived levels of depression, while the level of external locus of control [35] was found to be positively associated with teachers’ depressive symptoms. In addition, the included studies produced a long list of risk factors that could heighten the odds of developing depression among teachers. These factors included: the change from face-to-face teaching to online teaching [30]; extended working hours [53]; being absent due to sickness [53]; having childcare responsibilities [47]; having chronic pathology or living with others with it [47]; participating in epidemic prevention and control [52]; believing prolonged school closure can lead to negative effect [52]; having sleep duration of fewer than 6 hours a day [52]; partaking in physical exercise for less than 30 minutes in duration a day [52]; spending less time with family [52]; being concerned about COVID-19 [52]; having poor mental resilience [52]; and being under high levels of stress [52]. On the contrary, a higher evaluation of one’s own teaching experience acted as the only protective factor reported in lowering the odds of experiencing depression [55].

3.6 Stress

3.6.1 Prevalence of stress among teachers during COVID-19

Thirty-six studies (N = 36) assessed stress or its related symptoms among teachers (Table 5).

Table 5
Prevalence of stress

Outcome measures Reference Significance of stress Effect size/comment

Significant Non-significant Overall (not classified)

Kessler Distress Scale (K10) Akour et al. 2020 ✓ 69.6%, N = 382

PSWbPSTP Alves et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) for males (3.78±0.86) and females (3.90±0.84) Assessed as anxiety and stress. No overall estimate.

Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS) Anderson et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 2.55 (0.88), N = 35

RED-TIC Estrada-Muñoz et al. 2021 ✓ 6.8%, N = 3006

Impact of Event Scale- Revised (IES-R) Fan et al. 2021 ✓ 24.55%, N = 1650

Chinese Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF-15) Hong et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 2.85 (0.71), N = 718

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) Hidalgo-Andrade et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 13.0 (6.8), N = 394

Amaral-Prado et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) for males (30.69±0.62) and females (34.71±0.34), N = 893 (before COVID); Mean (SD) for males (29.79±1.08) and females (36.06±0.71), N = 242 (During COVID). No overall estimate reported.

Košir et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 2.86 (0.74), N = 964

Mari et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 16.94 (5.46), N = 158

Zhou et al. 2021 ✓ 96.1%, N = 1096.

Kumawatt 2020 ✓ 79%, N = 194

Loziak et al. 2020 ✓ N=103, no overall estimate reported

Oducado et al. 2021 ✓ 68.6%, N = 105

Rabaglietti et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 17.88 (5.98), N = 366

Toto and Limone 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 27.20 (8.11), N = 688

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21) Ali et al. 2021 ✓ 81%, N = 670

Miguel et al. 2021 ✓ 21.6%, N = 51

Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 2021 ✓ 50.6%, N = 1633

Santamaría et al. 2021 ✓ 68.2%, N = 818

UNIPSICO battery (Psychosomatic problems) Prado-Gascó et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 0.92 (0.60), N = 184 (Spain); Mean (SD) = 0.76 (0.56), N = 237 (Mexico). t =&thinsp-2.77, Total N = 421.

Self-developed MacIntyre et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 2.49 (1.17), N = 634

Self-developed Gupta et al. 2021 ✓ 51.1%, N = 45

Self-developed Klapproth et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 3.64 (0.98), N = 380

Self-developed Abilleira et al. 2021 ✓ 95.8%, N = 239

Self-developed Baker et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 7.39 (2.84), N = 454

Self-developed Besser et al. 2020 ✓ Mean (SD) = 3.42 (1.78), N = 313

Self-developed Bigras et al. 2021 ✓ 44.2%, N = 372

Self-developed Collie 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 4.68 (1.38), N = 325

Self-developed Sokal et al. 2020 ✓ Mean = 6.28, N = 1278. No SD reported.

Self-developed Stachteas and Stachteas 2020 ✓ 90.2%, N = 226

Self-developed Casimiro Urcos et al. 2020 ✓ 99.5%, N = 207

Kessler 6 item mental health index for measuring emotional stress Swigonski et al. 2021 ✓ 64.5%, N = 145.

Valutazione Rapida dello Stress Truzoli et al. 2021 ✓ Mean (SD) = 14.9 (7.2), N = 107

DSM-5 Acute Stress Disorder Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-5 ASD) Zhou and Yao 2020 ✓ 9.1%, N = 751

Stress ED-6 Scale (adapted) Zapata-Garibay et al. 2021 ✓ 23.7%, N = 1040

Outcome measures	Reference	Significance of stress
Kessler Distress Scale (K10)	Akour et al. 2020		✓	69.6%, N = 382
PSWbPSTP	Alves et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) for males (3.78±0.86) and females (3.90±0.84) Assessed as anxiety and stress. No overall estimate.
Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS)	Anderson et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 2.55 (0.88), N = 35
RED-TIC	Estrada-Muñoz et al. 2021		✓	6.8%, N = 3006
Impact of Event Scale- Revised (IES-R)	Fan et al. 2021		✓	24.55%, N = 1650
Chinese Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF-15)	Hong et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 2.85 (0.71), N = 718
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)	Hidalgo-Andrade et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 13.0 (6.8), N = 394
	Amaral-Prado et al. 2020	✓		Mean (SD) for males (30.69±0.62) and females (34.71±0.34), N = 893 (before COVID); Mean (SD) for males (29.79±1.08) and females (36.06±0.71), N = 242 (During COVID). No overall estimate reported.
	Košir et al. 2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 2.86 (0.74), N = 964
	Mari et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 16.94 (5.46), N = 158
	Zhou et al. 2021	✓		96.1%, N = 1096.
	Kumawatt 2020		✓	79%, N = 194
	Loziak et al. 2020		✓	N=103, no overall estimate reported
	Oducado et al. 2021		✓	68.6%, N = 105
	Rabaglietti et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 17.88 (5.98), N = 366
	Toto and Limone 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 27.20 (8.11), N = 688
Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21)	Ali et al. 2021		✓	81%, N = 670
	Miguel et al. 2021		✓	21.6%, N = 51
	Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al. 2021		✓	50.6%, N = 1633
	Santamaría et al. 2021		✓	68.2%, N = 818
UNIPSICO battery (Psychosomatic problems)	Prado-Gascó et al. 2020	✓		Mean (SD) = 0.92 (0.60), N = 184 (Spain); Mean (SD) = 0.76 (0.56), N = 237 (Mexico). t =&thinsp-2.77, Total N = 421.
Self-developed	MacIntyre et al. 2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 2.49 (1.17), N = 634
Self-developed	Gupta et al. 2021		✓	51.1%, N = 45
Self-developed	Klapproth et al. 2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 3.64 (0.98), N = 380
Self-developed	Abilleira et al. 2021		✓	95.8%, N = 239
Self-developed	Baker et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 7.39 (2.84), N = 454
Self-developed	Besser et al. 2020		✓	Mean (SD) = 3.42 (1.78), N = 313
Self-developed	Bigras et al. 2021		✓	44.2%, N = 372
Self-developed	Collie 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 4.68 (1.38), N = 325
Self-developed	Sokal et al. 2020		✓	Mean = 6.28, N = 1278. No SD reported.
Self-developed	Stachteas and Stachteas 2020		✓	90.2%, N = 226
Self-developed	Casimiro Urcos et al. 2020		✓	99.5%, N = 207
Kessler 6 item mental health index for measuring emotional stress	Swigonski et al. 2021		✓	64.5%, N = 145.
Valutazione Rapida dello Stress	Truzoli et al. 2021		✓	Mean (SD) = 14.9 (7.2), N = 107
DSM-5 Acute Stress Disorder Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-5 ASD)	Zhou and Yao 2020		✓	9.1%, N = 751
Stress ED-6 Scale (adapted)	Zapata-Garibay et al. 2021		✓	23.7%, N = 1040

Prevalence of stress among teachers ranged from 6.8% (N = 3006) [33] to 99.5% (N = 207) [34]. 18 out of the 36 studies provided sufficient data for conducting the meta- analysis, which revealed that the pooled prevalence of stress was 62.6% (95% CI: 46.1–76.6) (Fig. 4). However, there was a significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 99.47, p < 0.001).

Fig. 4

Forest plot indicating prevalence of stress among teachers.

Among the included studies, half of them (N = 18) surveyed teachers from a range of education levels (e.g., from primary to secondary school). Three (N = 3), one (N = 1), two (N = 2), and nine (N = 9) studies specifically recruited teachers from preschools, primary schools, secondary schools, and universities, respectively. Three (N = 3) studies did not provide details about the education level at which teachers taught. Prevalence of teachers’ stress was significantly associated with their anxiety symptoms [35 –37] and depression [35 , 52]. Stress-related symptoms reported include demotivation [56], technostress [33, 57], teachers’ vocal symptoms [58], somatic symptoms [59, 60], emotional exhaustion [59, 61], sense of job insecurity [60, negative affect 62], and teacher burnout [40 , 64].

3.6.2 Socio-demographic factors associated with teachers’ COVID-19-related stress

Demographic variables also played significant roles in the prevalence of stress among teachers, with gender being the most reported variable. Higher levels of stress among females compared to males was reported [42 , 65–68]. Age is another factor associated with teachers’ level of stress, with some studies indicate a positive association [57, 70], while others indicated a negative association [46 , 69]. Teachers who graduated from the liberal arts discipline showed a higher level of stress compared to those who graduated from science and technology disciplines [70]. The level of education teachers taught was found both positively [42, 67] and negatively [66] associated with teachers’ perceived stress levels.

3.6.3 Other associated factors of teachers’ COVID-19-related stress

Other factors found to be positively associated with teachers’ level of stress included: teaching experience [57], workload [60, 71], the perceived interpersonal conflicts [60], sense of job insecurity [60], perceived lack of organisational justice [60], teachers’ negative affect [62], general stress [58], vocal symptoms [58], somatic burden [59], perceived risk of getting Covid-19 [68], difficulties in organising distance learning [72], the perceived impact of online teaching [73], the level of external locus of control [35], and the changed teaching modality from offline to online [56]. On the other hand, teachers’ level of job satisfaction [39, 71], positive affect [62], dispositional joy and buoyance in teaching [62], ICT self- efficacy [74], self-efficacy [35, 72], sense of control [75], attitudes about online education [74], the perceived supervisor support [74], self-rated health [68], work stability [46], motivation for professional development [73], and psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness [75] were found to be negatively associated with teachers’ perceived stress. In addition, risk factors associated with teachers’ increased odds of developing anxiety symptoms included: conducting face-to-face teaching [57, 76], having low motivation for online teaching [65]; having no experience in online teaching [66]; raising vocal loudness when conducting online-teaching [58]; experiencing family-work conflict [71], having caregiving responsibilities [46 , 66]; had developed COVID-19 related symptoms [70]; had a relative or friend died from COVID-19 [70]; and having chronic pathology or living with others with chronic pathology [47].

3.7 Publication bias

Visual inspection of the funnel plots in Fig. 5 (a-c) indicated publication bias with respect to all three outcome variables (i.e., anxiety, depression, stress). However, this finding is partially confirmed by Egger’s regression test in that there was significant publication bias in anxiety (Intercept = 15.05, 95% CI: 2.03–28.07, p < 0.05), but not in depression (Intercept = 10.38, 95% CI: –7.48–28.15, p = 0.21) and stress (Intercept = 9.44, 95% CI: –3.06–21.94, p = 0.13).

Fig. 5

Funnel plots test publication bias (By Order): Anxiety (N = 12, Q = 4259, I² = 99.74, p < 0.001), Depression (N = 8, Q = 669, I² = 98.96, P < 0.001), and Stress (N = 18, Q = 3209, I² = 99.47, P < 0.001).

4 Discussion

The present study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis with the purpose of exploring the prevalence and the associated factors of teachers’ three psychological wellbeing constructs, namely anxiety, stress, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our analyses of the 54 included studies revealed that the prevalence of all three psychological issues was high among teachers as a result of the COVID- 19, and there is a wide range of factors associated affecting the prevalence. These psychological issues among the teachers affect their overall wellbeing and hence likely to compromise their abilities to teach effectively. In this section, we discuss the research findings considering the potential implications to teaching and education and the need to support teachers in a time of global crises like COVID-19.

4.1 Prevalence of the psychological issues among teachers during COVID-19

First, the aggregated prevalence of anxiety, depression and stress revealed from the meta-analysis indicated that more than one third (36.3%) of the teachers investigated experienced anxiety, and over half of them (59.9% and 62.6%, respectively) experienced depression and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to other studies conducted during this global health crisis, it is worth noting that the chances of developing these psychological issues among teachers are higher than what has been reported by the general public. For instance, a recent review study by Cénat et al. [77] found between 15–22% of the general public experienced anxiety, depressive, and psychological stress. Another research reported a set of slightly higher statistics in regard to the prevalence of these three psychological issues (anxiety, depression, stress) among the general public: 31.6%, 27.9% and 24.4%, respectively [78]. It appears that, compared to average individuals, teachers tend to be more susceptible to the negative effects brought on by the COVID-19. Firstly, this finding adds to Chan’s [79] claim that the teaching profession might be one of the most stressful occupations. Secondly, our analyses revealed that teachers experiencing anxiety, depression, and stress commonly found themselves battling other issues of deteriorated psychological health, such as feeling emotionally exhausted [59] or becoming demotivated to continue with the teaching profession [56]. It is evident that COVID-19 has not only disrupted teachers’ personal psychological health, it may also lead to an increased turnover rate in educational settings. Prior research has indicated a correlation between teachers’ well-being and their commitment to the profession, with those who reported feeling exhausted more likely to demonstrate intentions to leave [80]. To some extent, our findings provide support to the argument that it is imperative for teacher education programs to foster resilience among teacher candidates and consider it as one of the key dispositions of becoming a teaching professional; as it helps teachers to be better mentally prepared to navigate their ways in coping with the inevitable stressful periods in teaching [81]. For school administrators, our research finding indicates that it is necessary for them to be aware of the teachers’ heightened psychological health issues during the pandemic. A shared understanding of these issues can enable members of the school community (i.e., administrators, teachers, parents, etc.) to work together in developing coping strategies to help teachers overcome these difficulties, which in turn, also helps the school to minimise the chance of losing its teaching staff in this challenging time [82].

4.2 Factors associated with the teachers’ psychological issues

The difference in the levels of anxiety, depression, and stress was associated with various socio- demographic or institutional factors. Among them, we identified five major factors: gender, nature of online teaching, job satisfaction, teaching experience, and workload, all of which are discussed in the context of teaching and education.

Gender appears to be one of the most significant factors affecting experience during this period with anxiety, depression and stress, with female teachers face greater disadvantage compared to male teachers.

Although none of the studies included in this review specifically examined the nature of this relationship, it may be associated with the Covid-19 lockdown, which in turn increased the amount of both household workload and the teaching workload for female teachers, thereby worsened their psychological health. This is also consistent with prior studies, of which the likelihood for household responsibilities was linked to female teachers, as well as the responsibility of taking care of family members [66]. Caution, however, shall be paid because the role of being a female might vary across cultures, leading to differences in domestic responsibilities [77]. Additionally, female teachers’ worsened psychological health could be associated with their devotion to teaching out of the social expectation that teaching is a female-dominated profession [83].

Remote teaching or transitioning to online teaching is another factor affecting the psychological health of teachers during COVID-19, which has implications for teaching quality. Adapting to online teaching, including concerns about whether online teaching is an effective method [50] and how to customise the online teaching modality [30], has been found to be significantly associated with all the three psychological issues examined in the present review. This finding aligns with a prior study [84], which reported that teachers felt uncertain about conducting online teaching effectively, and such uncertainties failed to improve even after they had completed a semester of online teaching.

This finding is also in line with Gosselin [85], who opined that the transition from physical classroom teaching to online teaching poses extra challenges for teachers to ensure the quality of their teaching in a virtual environment. The present finding also highlighted the distinctiveness of online teaching, compared to face-to-face teaching [86]. This includes the physical separation between teachers and students, the dysfunction of teachers’ gesture and facial expressions, and reduction in the authority of teachers during online teaching. All of these features of online teaching posed challenges to teachers in their ability to adapt to online teaching environment. Transitioning into online teaching could also raise teachers’ worries about how to ensure the achievement of the academic outcome of their students, which has been reported to be a challenge in an online teaching context prior to COVID-19 [87]. This pattern of concern was also found to be similar during the Covid-19 online teaching [88]. These, therefore, necessitates the need to prepare teachers for effective online teaching in anticipation of future eventualities such as health crises.

Teaching is already considered one of the most stressful professions, and due to COVID-19, the daily tasks have become even more psychologically demanding, influencing teacher job satisfaction. Previous studies have long confirmed the negative correlation between teachers’ psychological issues with teacher job satisfaction [e.g., 89]. As in other professions, job satisfaction is an important issue in the education sector. Teachers who feel fulfilled or content with their profession perform better and are more committed to a school and its students [90]. On the other hand, teachers who are dissatisfied with their job are more likely to leave the profession [91], more prone to mental health problems [92], and more likely to engage in absenteeism [93]. In line with previous studies, our review found that the teachers’ psychological issues during this pandemic are negatively associated with their job satisfaction [39 , 71]. Ali et al. [39] found that psychologically distressed teachers have low job satisfaction. Additionally, Hong et al. [71] suggested that being forced to work from home increased teachers’ prevalence of work-family conflict, which is correlated with psychological wellbeing and job dissatisfaction. A study by Alqabbani et al. [50] found that teachers’ job satisfaction can remain high during the transition to remote teaching if schools provide support for teachers, such as the provision of teacher training, technical and infrastructural support. This finding echoes the importance of social and organisational supports to teachers’ level of job satisfaction [94, 95]. It is, therefore, deemed important to ensure the availability of supporting systems for teachers to maintain a positive appraisal of their jobs during this difficult time.

A comprehensive support system for all teachers is of the utmost importance during this disrupted time.

Our review found that experienced teachers are struggling just as much as early career teachers with transitioning from face-to-face teaching to online teaching. It is suggested that older and more experienced teachers who lack knowledge and interest in technology are more likely to suffer from ‘technostress’ as they are forced to utilise technology for online teaching [46, 57]. This new form of teaching requires that teachers be flexible and adjust quickly to using new technologies, which older teachers often find not only difficult but also intimidating [96]. At the same time, job insecurity and economic instability during this global pandemic exacerbate the psychological issues experienced by younger and beginner teachers [36, 46]. Providing knowledge- based support, such as training on teaching technologies, is important but, von der Embse et al. [97] suggest that supports that tap into teachers’ mindfulness, behavioural and cognitive behavioural domains are more effective than knowledge-based support.

Our review found that transitioning to remote online teaching has significantly increased teachers’ workload, which is associated with the levels of teachers’ stress, anxiety and depression. This is not an unexpected result, given the abrupt nature of the transitioning to online teaching, which required teachers to adapt quickly. Even teachers who are already familiar with teaching technology feel overwhelmed by the sudden transition [98]. Moreover, the remote online teaching has blurred the lines between work and household workloads, increasing the occurrences of work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts [71]. In general, teachers experience a substantial increase in workload and have reported being exhausted beyond measure [99] and raising concerns about their mental health [100]. Measures should be taken to help teachers cope with this worrying situation. Schools and districts should not only provide teacher training or technical support for teachers but also support to satisfy teachers’ psychological needs and sense of control [75].

5 Conclusions

The findings of the current review should be interpreted with caution, given some of the limitations associated with the nature of the included studies. Firstly, only quantitative studies published in English were included so that the insightful information on the relevant topic reported in studies of other languages and qualitative studies were not reported. Secondly, the studies included are predominantly cross-sectional, and hence, no causal relationships were established but possible associations between the different variables studied. Thirdly, the generalisability of the results revealed in this review might be restricted due to the fact that the included studies were conducted in a small number of countries and relied on convenient sampling strategies. Fourthly, the majority of the included studies were of medium quality, and six were of low quality (Table 2). This indicates the possibility of bias among the included studies, which was mainly associated with the design of the studies. Additionally, evidence of publication bias and high heterogeneity as estimated through funnel plots and I² tests respectively were found among the studies included in the meta-analyses (Fig. 2, 3, 4, 5).

This study applied a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the prevalence and associated factors of three main aspects of teachers’ psychological issues, namely anxiety, depression and stress, related to COVID-19 pandemic. It identified that teachers experienced worse psychological health during the COVID-19 pandemic than the general population. Various socio-demographic and institutional factors were found to be significantly associated with the experiences of anxiety, depression and stress among the teachers. The major ones include gender, nature of online teaching, job satisfaction, teaching experience and high workload. Additionally, some protective factors to overcome the negative psychological experiences were revealed, which include practising routine exercises and the provision of technical support for online teaching.

Certain implications could be drawn from the current findings. There is a need for authorities to formulate educational policies to improve teachers’ wellbeing at the time of global crises in order to ensure the quality of teaching. School administrators and stakeholders should devise specific interventions to identify and support teachers in need. Regular professional development courses, including coping strategies at the time of crises, and awareness of various online teaching strategies as well as the use of emerging technologies, should be instituted. Special attention should be paid to assist female teachers in overcoming both physical and mental stressors that negatively influence psychological wellbeing through measures which are encouraging, empowering and supportive.

In light of the findings and limitations of this review, future research should be conducted using longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs as opposed to cross-sectional studies in order to identify if the associations identified in this review would be replicated. Further studies could also design interventions to assist teachers during health crises. Finally, a comprehensive review of qualitative studies might also be desirable in terms of understanding the mechanisms underneath the associated variables and the psychological issues examined in this review.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the Jiangsu Provincial Key Constructive Laboratory for Big Data of Psychology and Cognitive Science (72592162008G), provided to the first author.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

World Health Organization. (2021b). Depression. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression

Gore

, Gitlin

Visioning the academic–teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the educationalcommunity. Teachers and Teaching. 2004;10(1):35–58.

Ilgan

, Ozu-Cengiz

, Ata

, Akram

The relationship between teachers’ psychological well-beingand their quality of school work life. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being. 2015;3(2):159–81.

Buettner

, Jeon

, Hur

, Garcia

Teachers’ social–emotional capacity: Factors associated with teachers’ responsiveness and professional commitment. Early Education and Development. 2016;27(7):1018–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896913485742

Whitaker

, Dearth-Wesley

, Gooze

Workplace stress and the quality of teacher–children relationships in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015;30:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.08.008

McLean

, Connor

Depressive symptoms in third-grade teachers: Relations to classroom quality and student achievement. Child Development. 2015;86(3):945–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12344

Stapleton

, Garby

, Sabot

Psychological distress and coping styles in teachers: A preliminary study. Australian Journal of Education. 2020;64(2):127–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944120908960

Rector

, Bourdeau

, Kitchen

, Joseph-Massiah

Anxiety disorders: An information guide. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. 2016. http://www.camh.ca/-/media/files/guides-and-publications/anxiety-guideen.pdf

Fernández-Batanero

, Román-Graván

, Reyes-Rebollo

, Montenegro-Rueda

Impact of educational technology on teacher stress and anxiety: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(2):548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020548

10.

Gresham

, Burleigh

Exploring early childhood preservice teachers’ mathematics anxiety and mathematics efficacy beliefs. Teaching Education. 2019;30(2):217–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1466875

11.

Ramirez

, Hooper

, Kersting

, Ferguson

, Yeager

Teacher math anxiety relates to adolescent students’ math achievement. Aera Open. 2018;4(1):2332858418756052. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418756052

12.

Haroz

, Ritchey

, Bass

, Kohrt

, Augustinavicius

, Michalopoulos

, Burkey

, Bolton

How is depression experienced around the world? A systematic review of qualitative literature. Social Science & Medicine.. 2017;18:151–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.030

13.

Whitaker

, Becker

, Herman

, Gooze

The physical and mental health of Head Start staff: The Pennsylvania Head Start staff wellness survey, 2012. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2013;10:E181. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.130171

14.

Hindman

, Bustamante

Teacher depression as a dynamic variable: Exploring the nature and predictors of change over the head start year. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2019;61:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.09.004

15.

Roberts

, Gallagher

, Daro

, Iruka

, Sarver

Workforce well-being: Personal and workplace contributions to early educators’ depression across settings. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2019;61:4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.09.007

16.

Hakanen

, Schaufeli

Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2012;141:2–3,415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043

17.

Whitaker

, Dearth-Wesley

, Herman

The association of daily spiritual experiences with depression among Head Start staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021;56:65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.03.001

18.

Whitebook

, Phillips

, Howes

Worthy work, STILL unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years after the National Child Care Staffing Study. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. 2014. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/16n6j8zz

19.

Hamre

, Pianta

Self-reported depression in nonfamilial caregivers: prevalence and associations with caregiver behavior in child-care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2004;19(2):297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.04.006

20.

Roberts

, LoCasale-Crouch

, Hamre

DeCoster. Exploring teachers’ depressive symptoms, interaction quality, and children’s cocial-emotional eevelopment in Head Start. Early Education and Development. 2016;27(5):642–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.11

21.

Kyriacou

, Sutcliffe

Teacher Stress: A review. Educational Review. 1977;29(4):299–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191770290407

22.

van den Borre

, Spruyt

, Van Droogenbroeck

Early career teacher retention intention: Individual, school and country characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021;105:103427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103427

23.

von der Embse

, Kilgus

, Solomon

, Bowler

, Curtiss

Initial development and factor structure of the educator test stress inventory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2015;33(3):223–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914548329

24.

von der Embse

, Ryan

, Gibbs

, Mankin

Teacher stress interventions: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools. 2019;56(8):1328–43. http://10.0.3.234/pits.22279

25.

Fimian

What is teacher stress?

The Clearing House. 1982;56(3)J:101–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1982.10113746

26.

Herman

, Reinke

, Eddy

Advances in understanding and intervening in teacher stress and coping: The Coping-Competence-Context Theory. Journal of School Psychology. 2020;78:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.00

27.

Collie

, Shapka

, Perry

School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012;104(4):1189–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356

28.

Moher

, Liberati

, Tetzlaff

, Altman

The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. The BMJ. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

29.

Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI Checklist for observational studies. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

30.

Kayabinar

, Kayabinar

, Önal

, Zengin

, Köse

The musculoskeletal problems and psychosocial status of teachers giving online education during the COVID-19 pandemic and preventive telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal problems. Work. 2021;68(1):33–43. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-203357

31.

Matiz

, Fabbro

, Paschetto

, Cantone

, Paolone

, Crescentini

Positive impact of mindfulness meditation on mental health of female teachers during the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(18):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186450

32.

Allen

, Jerrim

, Sims

How did the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic affect teacher wellbeing? (CEPEO Working Paper No. 20-15). Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, UCL. 2020. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucl:cepeow:20-15.

33.

Estrada-Muñoz

, Vega-Muñoz

, Castillo

, Müller-Pérez

, Boada-Grau

Technostress of Chilean teachers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and teleworking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18:5458. https://www-mdpi-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/1660-4601/18/10/5458

34.

Casimiro Urcos

, Casimiro Urcos

, Barbachán Ruales

, Casimiro Urcos

Stress, anguish, anxiety and resilience of university teachers in the face of covid-19. Utopia Y Praxis Latinoamericana. 2020;25:453–64. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4009790

35.

Truzoli

, Pirola

, Conte

The impact of risk and protective factors on online teaching experience in high school Italian teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2021;37:940–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12533

36.

Cheng

, Lam

The worst is yet to come: The psychological impact of COVID-19 on Hong Kong music teachers. Music Education Research. 2021;23(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1906215

37.

Pressley

Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educational Researcher. 2021;50(5):325–7. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138

38.

Aperribai

, Cortabarria

, Aguirre

, Verche

, Borges

Teacher’s physical activity and mental health during lockdown due to the COVID-pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:577886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577886

39.

Ali

, Naoreen

, Iqbal

, Jalal

Online teaching, psychological state, and job satisfaction: Teachers’ perspective during COVID-19 pandemic. Ilkogretim Online. 2021;20(2):358–64. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.02.37

40.

Miguel

, Marques

, Serr

Impact of COVID-19 on medicine lecturers’ mental health and emergency remote teaching challenges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136792

41.

Jelińska

, Paradowski

The impact of demographics, life and work circumstances on college and university instructors’ well-being during quaranteaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:643229. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643229

42.

Alves

, Lopes

, Precioso

Teachers’ well-being in times of Covid-19 pandemic: Factors that explain professional well-being. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation. 2021;15:203–17. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5120

43.

Çifçi

, Demir

The effect of home-based exercise on anxiety and mental well-being levels of teachers and pre-service teachers in COVID-19 pandemic. African Educational Research Journal. 2020;8(2):20–8. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1274658

44.

, Miao

, Zeng

, Tarimo

, Wu

Prevalence and factors for anxiety during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the teachers in China. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2020;277:153–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.017

45.

, Tarimo

, Miao

, Zeng

, Wu

Effects of mask wearing on anxiety of teachers affected by COVID- A large cross-sectional study in China. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2021;281:574–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.113

46.

Ozamiz-Etxebarria

, Berasategi Santxo

, Idoiaga Mondragon

, Dosil Santamaría

The psychological state of teachers during the COVID-19 crisis: The challenge of returning to face-to-face teaching. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;11:620718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620718

47.

Santamaría

, Mondragon

, Santxo

, Ozamiz-Etxebarria

Teacher stress, anxiety and depression at the beginning of the academic year during the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Mental Health. 2021;8:e14–1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2021.14

48.

Wakui

, Abe

, Shirozu

, Yamamoto

, Yamamura

, Abe

, Murata

, Ozawa

, Igarashi

, Yanagiya

, Machida

, Kikuchi

Causes of anxiety among teachers giving face-to- face lessons after the reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1050. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11130-y

49.

Auger

, Formentin

This is depressing: The emotional labor of teaching during the pandemic spring 2020. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator. 2021 [Advance online publication] https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958211012900

50.

Alqabbani

, Almuwais

, Benajiba

, Almoayad

Readiness towards emergency shifting to remote learning during COVID-19 pandemic among university instructors. E-Learning and Digital Media. 2020;18(5):460–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020981651

51.

Amaral-Prado

, Borghi

, Mello

TMVF

, Grassi-Kassisse

The impact of confinement in the psychosocial behaviour due COVID-19 among members of a Brazilian university. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2020. [Advance online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020971318

52.

Zhou

, Yuan

, Huang

, Li

, Yu

, Chen

, Luo

The prevalence and correlative factors of depression among Chinese teachers during the COVID-19 outbreak. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2021;12:644276. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.644276

53.

Palma-Vasquez

, Carrasco

, Hernando-Rodriguez

Mental health of teachers who have teleworked due to COVID-19. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2021;11(2):515–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020037

54.

Stachteas

, Stachteas

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary school teachers. Psychiatriki. 2020;31(4):293–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1455072596013005-611

55.

Casacchia

, Cifone

, Giusti

, Fabiani

, Gatto

, Lancia

, Cinque

, Petrucci

, Giannoni

, Ippoliti

, Frattaroli

, Macchiarelli

, Roncone

Distance education during COVID an Italian survey on the university teachers’ perspectives and their emotional conditions. BMC Medical Education. 2021;21(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02780-y

56.

Zapata-Garibay

, González-Fagoaga

, Asadi-González

, Martínez-Alvarado

, Chavez-Baray

, Plascencia-López

, González-Fagoaga

Mental health stressors in higher education instructors and students in Mexico during the emergency remote teaching implementation due to COVID-19. Frontiers in Education. 2021;6:670400. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.670400

57.

Abilleira

, Rodicio-García

, Ríos-de Deus

, Mosquera-González

Technostress in Spanishuniversity teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:17650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617650

58.

Besser

, Lotem

, Zeigler-Hill

Psychological stress and vocal symptoms among university professors in Israel: Implications of the shift to online synchronous teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Voice. 2020 [Advance online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.05.028

59.

Collie

COVID-19 and teachers’ somatic burden, stress, and emotional exhaustion: Examining the role of principal leadership and workplace buoyancy. AERA Open. 2021;7(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986187

60.

Prado-Gascó

, Gómez-Domínguez

, Soto-Rubio

, Díaz-Rodríguez

, Navarro-Mateu

Stay at home and teach: A comparative study of psychosocial risks between Spain and Mexico during the pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:566900. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566900

61.

MacIntyre

, Gregersen

, Mercer

Language teachers’ coping strategies during the Covid-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing and negative emotions. System. 2020;94:102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352

62.

Anderson

, Bousselot

, Katz-Buoincontro

, Todd

Generating buoyancy in a sea of uncertainty: Teachers creativity and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;11:614774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614774

63.

Kumawat

Perceived stress and burnout in online teaching in teachers in India during pandemic COVID-19. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing. 2020;11.

64.

Sokal

, Trudel

LG.E

, Babb

Supporting teachers in times of change: The job demands- resources model and teacher burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Contemporary Education. 2020;3(2):67–74. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijce.v3i2.4931

65.

Akour

, Al-Tammemi

, Barakat

, Kanj

, Fakhouri

, Malkawi

, Musleh

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency distance teaching on the psychological status of university teachers: A cross-sectional study in Jordan. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2020;103(6):2391–9. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0877

66.

Hidalgo-Andrade

, Hermosa-Bosano

, Paz

Teachers’ mental health and self-reported coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ecuador: A mixed-methods study. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2021;14:933–44. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S314844

67.

Klapproth

, Federkeil

, Heinschke

, Jungmann

Teachers experiences of stress and their coping strategies during COVID - 19 induced distance teaching. Journal of Pedagogical Research. 2020;4(4):444–52. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.2020062805

68.

Oducado

RMF

, Rabacal

, Moralista

Perceived stress due to COVID-19 pandemic among employed professional teachers. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation. 2021;15:305–16. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5284

69.

Loziak

, Fedáková

, Čopková

Work-related stressors of female teachers during COVID-19 school closure. Journal Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education. 2020;3:59–78. https://doi.org/10.28934/jwee20.34.

70.

Fan

, Fu

, Li

, Zhu

Trauma exposure and the PTSD symptoms of college teachers during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak. Stress and Health. 2021 [Advance online publication] https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3049.

71.

Hong

, Liu

, Zhang

Dual stressors and female pre-school teachers’ job satisfaction during the COVID- The mediation of work-family conflict. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:691498. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.691498

72.

Rabaglietti

, Lattke

, Tesauri

, Settanni

, De Lorenzo

A balancing act during Covid- Teachers’ self-efficacy, perception of stress in the distance learning experience. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:644108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644108

73.

Toto

G.A

, Limone

Motivation, stress and impact of online teaching on Italian teachers during Covid-19. Computers. 2021;10:75. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060075

74.

Košir

, Dugonik

, Huskić

, Gračner

, Kokol

, Krajnc

Predictors of perceived teachers’ and school counsellors’ work stress in the transition period of online education in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Studies. 2020 [Advance online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1833840

75.

Zhou

, Yao

Social support and acute stress symptoms (ASSs) during the COVID-19 outbreak: Deciphering the roles of psychological needs and sense of control. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. 2020;11(1):1779494. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1779

76.

Bigras

, Lemay

, Lehrer

, Charron

, Duval

, Robert-Mazaye

, Laurin

Early childhood educators’ perceptions of their emotional state, relationships with parents, challenges, and opportunities during the early stage of the pandemic. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2021;49(5):775–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01224-y

77.

Cénat

, Blais-Rochette

, Kokou-Kpolou

, Noorishad

, Mukunzi

, McIntee

, Dalexis

, Goulet

, Labelle

Prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological distress among populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research. 2021;295:113599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113599

78.

Shi

, Lu

, Que

, Huang

, Liu

, Ran

, Lu

Prevalence of and risk factors associated with mental health symptoms among the general population in China during the coronavirus disease pandemic. JAMA Network Open. 2020;3(7):e2014053–e2014053. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.14053

79.

Chan

Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and psychological distress among prospective Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology. 2002;22(5):557–69.

80.

Grant

, Jeon

, Buettner

Relating early childhood teachers’ working conditions and well-being to their turnover intentions. Educational Psychology. 2019;39(3):294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856

81.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School LeadershiAccreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia. 2019. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programs-in-australia.pdf?sfvrsn=e87cff3c_28

82.

Howard

, Johnson

Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education. 2004;7(4):399–420.

83.

Ross

, Cousins

, Gadalla

Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1996;12(4):385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(95)00046-M

84.

, Chutiyami

, Zhang

, Nicoll

Online teaching self-efficacy during COVID- Changes, its associated factors and moderators. Education and Information Technologies. 2021 [Advance online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10486-3

85.

Gosselin

Development and psychometric exploration of the online teaching self-efficacy inventory. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University. 2009. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle///Gosselin_Kevin_Diss.pdf?sequence=1

86.

Sintema

Effect of COVID-19 on the performance of grade 12 students: Implications for STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2020;16(7):em1851. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/7893

87.

Biggs

What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development. 2012;31(1):39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642839

88.

Orlov

, Mckee

, Berry

, Boyle

, Diciccio

, Ransom

, Rees-jones

, Stoye

Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: It is not who you teach, but how you teach. Economics Letters. 2021;202:109812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109812

89.

Chaplain

Stress and job satisfaction: A study of English primary school teachers. Educational Psychology. 1995;15(4):473–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341950150409

90.

Jennet

, Harris

, Mesibov

Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2003;33(6):583–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000005996.19417.57

91.

Kelly

, Cespedes

, Clarà

, Danaher

Early career teachers’ intentions to leave the profession: The complex relationships among preservice education, early career support, and job satisfaction. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2019;44(3):93–113. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n3.6

92.

Dirlam

, Zheng

Job satisfaction developmental trajectories and health: A life course perspective. Social Science & Medicine. 2017;178:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.040

93.

Billingsley

, Cross

Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. The Journal of Special Education. 1992;25(4):453–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202500404

94.

Edinger

, Edinger

Improving teacher job satisfaction: The roles of social capital, teacher efficacy, and support. Journal of Psychology. 2018;152(8):573–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1489364

95.

Malinen

O.-P

, Savolainen

The effect of perceived school climate and teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016;60:144–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012

96.

Song

, Chen

Information and communication technology among early and late middle-aged adults in urban China: Daily use and anticipated support in old age. Australasian Journal of Ageing. 2019;38(3):e85–e92. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12668

97.

von der Embse

, Ryan

, Gibbs

, Mankin

Teacher stress interventions: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools. 2019;56(8):1328–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22279

98.

Trust

, Whalen

Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lesson learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2020;28(2):189–99. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/95/

99.

Phillips

, Cain

‘Exhausted beyond measure’: what teachers are saying about COVID-19 and the disruption to education. The Conversation. 2020. https://theconversation.com/exhausted-beyond-measure-what-teachers-are-saying-about-covid-19-and-the-disruption-to-education-01

100.

Qing

More than 80% of S’pore teachers say Covid-19 pandemic has hurt their mental health: Survey. The Strait Times. 2021. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parenting-education/more-than-80-of-teachers-say-the-pandemic-has-hurt-their-mental-health

101.

Jones-Rincon

, Howard

Anxiety in the workplace: A comprehensive occupational health evaluation of anxiety disorder in public school teachers. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research. 2019;24(1):e12133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12133

102.

American Psychology Association (n.d.). Anxiety. https://www.apa.org/topics/anxiety

103.

Baker

, Peele

, Daniels

, Saybe

, Whalen

, Overstreet

, The New Orleans T.-I. S. L. C. (2021). The experience of COVID-19 and its impact on teachers’ mental health, coping, and teaching. School Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2020.1855473

104.

Gupta

, Aggarwal

, Sable

, Chahar

, Sharma

, Kumari

, Maji

. (2021). Covid-19 pandemic and online education: Impact on students, parents and teachers. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2021.1909518

105.

Karaşar

, Canli

Psychological resilience and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. Psychiatria Danubina. 2020;32(2):273–9. https://doi.org/10.24869/PSYD.2020.273

106.

Mari

, Lausi

, Fraschetti

, Pizzo

, Baldi

, Quaglieri

, Burrai

, Barchielli

, Avallone

, Giannini

Teaching during the pandemic: A comparison in psychological wellbeing among smart working professions. Sustainability. 2021;13(9):4850. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094850

107.

Sheikh

, Chaudahry

, Ghogare

Depression in teachers due to cyberbullying who are working in covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Current Research and Review. 2020;12(20):98–102. https://doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2020.122015

108.

Swigonski

, James

, Wynns

, Casavan

Physical, mental, and financial stress impacts of COVID-19 on early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal. (2021). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01223-z

109.

Zhao

, Guo

, Xiao

, Zhu

, Sun

, Huang

, Liang

, Tang

, Zhang

, Zhu

, Wu

The effects of online homes schooling on children, parents, and teachers of grades 1-9 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical Science Monitor. 2020;26:e925591. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.925591