Staff wellbeing in higher education (HE) faces sustained pressures arising from increased workloads, diminished autonomy, and post-pandemic work patterns, with implications for retention, performance, and student experience.
The Research Network undertook a participatory desk review, funded by the Health SpotlightLink opens in a new window, engaging HE staff as partners in critiquing and interpreting the evidence. This centre's lived experiences, and enhances the relevance, ownership, and adoption of subsequent findings and recommendations
Stakeholders were engaged throughout the project, from scoping and aim-setting to manuscript preparation. Two sensemaking workshops supported collective interpretation of the findings, and stakeholder perspectives were integrated across the review.
Our systematic search yielded 16 included studies: 10 quantitative, 5 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods.
Aim 1: Get an overview of the wellbeing problems frequently mentioned in the literature鈥赌�
The majority of studies reported multiple wellbeing domains, most frequently general psychological wellbeing. This encompassed constructs such as emotional wellbeing and psychological distress but excluded clinical labels.
Stakeholders emphasised that specifying distinct wellbeing concern can aid identification of discrete needs, allowing universities to match supports to appropriate, targeted clinical pathways.
Aim 2: Examine which staff groups are represented in the evidence base
For the majority of participants, job role was either unreported or not extractable. Where role was available, a clear imbalance was evident between academic and non-academic staff.
Stakeholders advocated for equal focus between staff and identified priority subgroups, including staff with disabilities and chronic conditions, neurodivergent individuals, and early career workers, whose wellbeing needs may be distinct.
Aim 3: Identify available support mechanisms and initiatives for HE staff
Five institutional mechanisms emerged:
- Wellbeing programmes (e.g., yoga, emotional intelligence workshops): promising but with variable scalability and engagement
- Wellbeing policies: useful frameworks, though early uptake and communication were recurrent challenges
- Leadership styles: evidence from specific leadership theories suggests that effective leaders act as positive resources for staff wellbeing
- Peer support: consistently identified as a resource that can bolster wellbeing
- Institutional structures: adequate infrastructure, clear access to support, training opportunities, and a positive organisational culture
These mechanisms are layered: programmes sit within organisation-level policies, supported by resource-creating leadership and peer relationships, and underpinned by fit-for-purpose infrastructure, accessible support, training, and health organisational culture.
Aim 4: Identify and summarise organisational factors that are related with staff wellbeing
Employing qualitative content analysis, 6 themes were identified relating to the organisational factors influencing staff wellbeing.
| Interconnectedness of Mental Health & Wellbeing |
Distinct mental health factors (e.g., burnout, stress) were closely linked with broader wellbeing (e.g., emotional wellbeing, distress). Gender disparities were noted with female staff more likely to report burnout, poorer wellbeing, and higher stress |
| Campus Structures & Wellbeing Activities |
Structural supports (e.g., access to supervision, cultures that normalised work-life balance and collaboration) and specific activities (programmes and policies) influence wellbeing. Programmes showed mixed quantitative effect but generally positive feedback. Policies helped shift culture and infrastructure (e.g., relaxation spaces, 鈥榟ealthy pauses鈥� during the workday), and were often viewed as a genuine sign the university cared about staff health |
| Leadership & Manager Support |
Supportive leadership (i.e., recognition, appreciation, and development opportunities) was linked to greater psychological safety and work engagement. Poor leadership and unchecked workload expectations undermined psychological safety and contributed to overwhelm |
| Peer Relations & Collaboration |
Collegial relationships and opportunities to collaborate were consistently associated with better wellbeing. Lack of time and heavy workloads limited engagement, especially where leaders did not create space for peer bonding |
| Purposeful Work Versus Work Demands |
See one鈥檚 work as meaningful related positively to wellbeing and engagement. Negative job characteristics, especially job insecurity and high workload, were associated with elevated psychological distress and reduced wellbeing |
| Barriers to Engaging in Wellbeing Activities |
Workload, time constraints, and accessibility issues limited participation and reduced the effectiveness of otherwise positive initiatives |
Together the themes suggest a systems perspective, with the interconnectedness of mental health and wellbeing as the central outcome. Four sets of resources (supportive structures and activities, effective leadership, accessible peer networks, and meaningful work) reinforce one another. For example, wellbeing activities are more effective when enabled by good leadership, string peer connection, and recognition of meaningful work. Likewise, collegial support and recognition can buffer strain and enhance engagement, but they often depend on leaders who prioritise peer bonding and appreciate staff contributions. If these resources co-exist, they can act as resource bundles, which can help lessen the strain of work pressures.
Across this system, demands and barriers, notably workload, communication gaps, and access limitations, cut across themes can blunt the impact of activities, leadership, and peer networks. The picture, therefore, is not of isolated factors but a dynamic system in which resources and demands interact to shape staff wellbeing.
Aim 5: Identify and summarise the institutional recommendations and future research priorities proposed in the literature
Institutions:
To embed wellbeing within organisational culture, institutions should adopt sustainable strategies: establish leadership accountability, implement policies, strengthen communication, and institute long-term evaluation and monitoring of support and outcomes.
Research:
Research should address gaps by sampling underrepresented groups (e.g., non-academic staff) and employing participatory methodologies.
Conclusion
Given the systemic nature of staff wellbeing, institutions should tackle key demands (notably workload) and embed co-produced, coherent resource bundles to ensure that supports are relevant, acceptable and usable.
