A Quest for Sustainability in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of the Factors and Interventions Associated with Resilience

Résumé fourni par la source

The workforce in higher education is experiencing a staff shortage, heavy workload, burnout, and stress. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this situation, dramatically impairing staff well-being. Resilience could help mitigate the negative impacts of workforce shortages in higher education; however, the factors associated with resilience and intervention effectiveness are underexplored in higher education staff. This systematic review provides new, comprehensive evidence on this research gap in this high-need population. Thirty-three studies were collated from CINAHL Ultimate, Cochrane, Medline (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), Embase (OVID), and Scopus between March and April 2024. They were included if participants, including administrators, worked in higher education and reported resilience, the associated factors, or resilience interventions. Studies were peer-reviewed quantitative journal articles with a full text in English and published between the inception and April 2024. Thirty studies were utilised to analyse the associated factors with resilience, while three were used to identify the effectiveness of resilience interventions. From the included 30 studies, 56 factors were identified as associated factors with resilience, categorised as demographics ( n = 10) (e.g., age, gender), job demands ( n = 17) (e.g., burnout, cynicism, ill-health, job insecurity, strain), and job resources ( n = 29) (e.g., individual attributes and psychological factors, social and environmental support). A mean resilience level in the collated studies could not be meta-analysed due to heterogeneous measures. Resilience interventions in the three studies were not effective. This review offers critical and comprehensive insights to inform policies and institutional strategies for enhancing psychological well-being and sustainability in higher education.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.