Next Article in Journal
The Feasibility of Implementing the Flexible Surge Capacity Concept in Bangkok: Willing Participants and Educational Gaps
Next Article in Special Issue
Consequences of COVID-19 Confinement for Teachers: Family-Work Interactions, Technostress, and Perceived Organizational Support
Previous Article in Journal
Reasons for Pack Size Purchase among US Adults Who Purchase Cigars
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Reopening of Schools in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Quality of Life of Teachers While Coping with This New Challenge in the North of Spain

Department of Evolutionary and Educational Psychology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48940 Leioa, Spain
Department Didactics and School Organisation, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48940 Leioa, Spain
Department of Research and Diagnostic Methods in Education, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48940 Leioa, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(15), 7791;
Received: 21 June 2021 / Revised: 14 July 2021 / Accepted: 21 July 2021 / Published: 22 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Teachers' Well-Being at Work and Quality of Life)


Background: This study aims to analyze how teachers perceived their quality of life when coping with the reopening of schools after their closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was carried out with a total sample of 1633 teachers from the Department of Education of the Basque Autonomous Community (Northern Spain), all of the professionals working in different educational centers, from preschool education to university studies, with the average age of 42.02 years (SD = 10.40). Main Outcome Measures: For this purpose, the Spanish version of the WHOQOL-BREF was used. Results: The highest values of perceived quality of life were found in the dimension of psychological health, followed by the dimension of physical health, the social relations dimension, and finally, the environmental dimensions. The results also revealed significant differences depending on gender, age, having a chronic illness, or living with someone who has a chronic illness, employment security, and educational sector. Conclusion: The study shows that it is important to attend to teachers’ health and quality of life, especially older teachers, those with a chronic illness, caregivers, those with job insecurity, and those who teach in preschool education.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on public health. Spain is one of the European countries that has so far been the most affected by COVID-19. Cases began to multiply exponentially and uncontrollably in early March 2020, prompting the Spanish government to declare a state of emergency on 14 March 2020, which included the closure of all schools in the country [1] along with the mandatory lockdown of all citizens [2]. As of 7 September 2020, 525,549 people had been diagnosed with COVID-19 in Spain, and 29,516 people have died of the illness in this country.
One of the most widespread measures taken to stop the expansion of COVID-19 was the closure of educational centers [3]. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [4] estimated that, at the end of March 2020, 1,574,989,812 students (90% of those enrolled) in the world were affected by the closure of schools in response to COVID-19. Eight months later, with the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, there were still 851,870,246 students in the world affected by school closures (48.7% of those enrolled).
In Spain, most schools reopened in September of the 2020–2021 school year. However, this reopening was somewhat controversial and full of uncertainties, as the Spanish government did not establish the minimum required conditions for the reopening of schools until 10 August. In addition, in some autonomous communities, those conditions were decided even later [5] (Rtve, 2020). For example, in the autonomous community of the Basque Country, these guidelines were agreed upon on 28 August, just ten days before the reopening of the schools on 7 September [6]. Similarly, the State Ministry of Universities disseminated its guidelines on 31 August.
Furthermore, the school community also complained that, aside from being late, some of the guidelines were ambiguous and left many decisions to be faced by the schools with hardly any new resources [7]. Therefore, it is clear that both the closure of schools and their reopening during the pandemic amid much uncertainty have affected millions of students and teachers, as they have had to adapt both their teaching format and their daily routines [8].
It should be borne in mind that, according to the World Health Organization [9], health is “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (p. 1), the study of how the current pandemic is affecting health should be analyzed both in terms of COVID-19 infections, as well as in terms of people’s quality of life at a holistic level. In the same vein, WHO also emphasizes that health is measured by the extent to which an individual or a group can change or cope with their environment [10].
Providing quality education has been defined as one of the objectives for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by the United Nations, and is therefore key for all countries [11]. In addition, education itself is also key to tackling the pandemic and reducing the social inequalities it may bring. Therefore, several researchers and experts have pointed out that the reopening of schools is essential to ensure the emotional, social, physical, and academic health of the population [12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, for quality education to be guaranteed, it is essential to ensure the health and wellbeing of the professionals who provide it, as UNESCO [4] has already identified that confusion and stress among teachers is one of the adverse consequences of school closures.
In other words, in addition to ensuring that schools are safe spaces on an epidemiological level, the quality of life of the professionals who work there must also be protected. According to the WHO, quality of life is defined in terms of how the individual perceives their cultural environment and the system of values in which they live with regard to certain objectives, criteria, and expectations. This is combined with physical health, psychological state, degree of independence, social relations, environmental factors, and personal beliefs.
Before the pandemic, the quality of life of teachers was identified as a key factor in ensuring quality education [18,19,20,21,22]. From these studies, it was concluded that environmental, contextual, and affective factors predominantly influence the overall wellbeing and quality of life of teachers [23]. The lack of psychological stability, social relations, and interaction with the environment can greatly impair the quality of life of these professionals. In addition, stressful work is responsible for the high risk of physical and psychological disorders, which can be detrimental to the workers’ quality of life [18,20].
In any case, the quality of life will vary among teachers and depend on several factors. To begin with, having secure employment is one of the clear variables that influences the perception of quality of life [24]. In addition, job insecurity has great psychological consequences, as shown in previous crises, and can significantly influence life quality.
Concerning gender, several studies indicate that, in general, women’s quality of life is often lower than men’s, both in the general population [25,26] and among teachers [27]. Likewise, in terms of age, studies show that the quality of life is poorer in older people in studies conducted in both non-COVID-19 times [28,29] and during the COVID-19 period [30]. However, in contrast to these findings, other studies indicate that younger people are showing more psychological suffering [31].
Moreover, as far as health variables are concerned, people who have illnesses such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, or lung disease experience a reduction in all levels of quality of life [32]. Indeed, a study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that people with chronic illnesses are more likely to have a lower quality of life, as being more susceptible to the COVID-19 virus influences them in several aspects [30].
Framed within this context, by considering how teachers are coping with the return to school during this pandemic, we might be better positioned to put in place relevant support structures that may be needed to ensure quality education. Therefore, this research aims to study how teachers perceived their quality of life when coping with the reopening of schools in this new academic year during the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, teachers’ perceived quality of life at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year will be analyzed, considering the following four dimensions: physical health, psychological health, social relations, and environment. In addition, differences in quality of life will be analyzed according to gender, age, having a chronic illness or living with someone who has a chronic illness, employment security, and educational sector (infant education, primary education, high school, or university).
It is expected that teachers will have a lower perceived quality of life in social relations and the environment due to the direct influence that measures to stop COVID-19 may have had on them. It is also expected that women will have a lower perceived quality of life due to the care role that many have been fulfilling during the pandemic. Differences are also expected according to the age of the participants, with the older participants coping better due to their job security, among other reasons. It is also predicted that people with chronic diseases or those that live with people with chronic diseases will report a worse quality of life during a pandemic situation. Finally, job insecurity and the educational sector in which teachers work are also expected to affect the perceived quality of life, with the expectation that those working with the youngest children have to deal with more pressure and responsibility.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study was carried out with a total sample of 1633 teachers from the Basque Autonomous Community (Northern Spain), who work in different educational stages. This sample was composed of 1293 women (M age = 42.6; SD = 9.96) and 330 men (M age = 42.02; SD = 10.40). The age range was 23–67 years. Of the sample, 18.9% were teaching in preschool education (n = 309), 32.55% in primary education (n = 530), 30.1% in secondary education (n = 491), 5.5% in bachelor studies (n = 89), 5.6% in vocational training (n = 91), and 7.5% in university studies (n = 123). A total of 47.3% (n = 772) of the participants had school-age children. In addition, 16.7% (n = 273) had a chronic disease, and 18.1% (n = 296) of the sample lived with someone with a chronic illness. Finally, 35.2% (n = 574) responded yes to the question of whether a family member had been infected with COVID-19.

2.2. Instruments

An ad hoc questionnaire was designed to collect data on personal, family, and social factors (gender, age, workplace, job stability, whether they had a chronic illness or lived with a person with a chronic illness).
Quality of life was measured using the Spanish version of WHOQOL-BREF (Espinoza et al., 2011), which is a short-form quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL-BREF focuses on the “perceived” quality of life of the participant. Therefore, the questionnaire evaluates a multidimensional concept that incorporates the individual’s perception of health and psychosocial status, along with other aspects of life. The scale consists of 26 items, which provides a profile composed of four dimensions: physical health, psychological health, social relations, and environment. Physical health includes the facets of activities of daily living, dependence on medicinal substances and medical aids, energy and fatigue, mobility, pain and discomfort, sleep and rest, and the ability to work (Items 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 18). The following Likert-type responses were used: very dissatisfied, a little dissatisfied, normal, quite satisfied, and very satisfied. Psychological health includes facets of body image and appearance, negative feelings, positive feelings, self-esteem, spirituality/religion, personal beliefs and thinking, learning memory, and concentration (Items 4, 8, 17, 19, 24, and 26). Social relationships includes facets of personal relationships, social support, and sexual activity (Items 9, 10, and 11) both in the psychological and social dimension. The following Likert-type responses were used: nothing, a little, normal, quite, and extremely. Environment includes the facets of financial resources, freedom, physical safety, health and social care, accessibility and quality, home environment, opportunities to acquire new information and skills, participation and opportunities for leisure activities, physical environment (pollution/noise/traffic/climate) and means of transport (Items 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25). The following Likert-type responses were used: very dissatisfied, a little dissatisfied, normal, quite satisfied, and very satisfied. Moreover, the following items were reversed: 15, 16, and 26. The higher the final score; the higher the quality of life. The minimum and maximum scores for each dimension in this study were the following: physical health: 4.80–16.80; psychological health: 5–16.67; social relationships: 4–16; and environment: 4–16.
Regarding the reliability of the scale, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was α = 0.85. For the physical health scale, α = 0.82; for the psychological health scale, α = 0.80; for the social relations dimension, α = 0.76; and for the environment dimension, α = 0.80.

2.3. Procedure

The sample was recruited through non-probabilistic sampling. An explanatory email with an online questionnaire to be filled in was sent to all schools in the region to reach all teachers. They were asked to disseminate this questionnaire among their teachers between 5–28 September 2020 (beginning of the school year). The questionnaire explained both the objectives of the study and the procedures to be followed during the study, as well as the right to voluntarily withdraw from the study if so desired. The Ethics Committee of the University of the Basque Country approved the study (UPV/EHU) (code M10/070/2020). For the data collection, all the canons established by the Organic Law 15/99 on the Protection of Personal Data were followed. In the questionnaires, participants were informed of the voluntary nature of their participation and the commitment required to start the test. Therefore, the procedure was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed with the statistical program SPSS v.26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). First, the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity of variances were checked to decide whether to use parametric or non-parametric tests. Specifically, the critical level of p < 0.05 was adopted for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics, and the levels of asymmetry and kurtosis were analyzed. From these analyses, it was concluded that the data followed a normal distribution, so the authors decided to use parametric tests.
The dimensions of Quality of Life were categorized by the items indicated by the scale, and the items of the questionnaire with an inverse formulation were recorded. Subsequently, means were compared with the Student t-test when two groups were involved, and by univariate analysis, ANOVA, when analyzing the differences between more than two groups. The purpose of these analyses was to test for differences between the various quality of life dimensions and the socio-demographic variables analyzed for this study.

3. Results

3.1. General Characteristics of the Dimensions

The results indicate that the highest values of perceived quality of life were found for the dimension of psychological health (M = 11.48; SD = 2.06), followed by physical health (M = 11.20; SD = 2.02), social relations (M = 9.88; SD = 2.82), and finally the environmental dimensions (M = 9.77; SD = 1.86).

3.2. Significant Gender and Age Differences

Table 1 and Table 2 show gender differences in the social relations dimension, t (1621) = 2.64, p < 0.008, Cohen’s d = 0.16, with women reporting the highest levels of quality of life in this area. Likewise, the environmental dimension, t (1621) = −2.42, p < 0.016, Cohen’s d = 0.15, also differed significantly according to gender, but in this case men reported a greater environmental quality of life. Regarding age, there were statistically significant differences among all age ranges for all dimensions of the WHOQOL-BREF scale. For physical health, F (2, 1629) = 5.50, p = 0.04, η2 = 0.007, for psychological health, F (2, 1629) = 8.49, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.010, for social relations, F (2, 1629) = 12.18, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.015 and for environmental health, F (2, 1629) = 3.65, p = 0.26, η2 = 0.004. The differences (post hoc) among age groups are observable in Table 2.

3.3. Significant Differences According to Chronic Illness

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics according to whether the participants had a chronic illness or were living with a chronically ill person. In Table 4, differences can be observed in terms of the various quality of life dimensions. In this case, the psychological health dimension, t (1631) = −3.84, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.25 differs significantly according to whether or not the participants are chronically ill, as those without a chronic illness reported a greater psychological quality of life. Moreover, differences in the environmental quality of life dimension, t (1631) = −3.80, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.24, show that those without a chronic illness have a higher perceived quality of life. Differences in both dimensions are with a small effect size. In the case of living with a chronically ill person, the differences are statistically significant for all dimensions. Participants who do not live with a chronically ill person show a higher perceived quality of life (See Table 4).

3.4. Significant Differences According to Job Stability and Workplace

Concerning the job stability variable, statistically significant differences were again found in the psychological, F (2, 1629) = 2.65, p = 0.047, η2 = 0.005 and environmental dimensions, F (2, 1629) = 3.08, p = 0.026, η2 = 0.006, both with small effect sizes. The differences for this dimension of psychological quality of life were found among people working for less than three months and people with indefinite contracts, with people with indefinite contracts showing a higher perceived psychological quality of life. The same occurs in the dimension of environmental quality of life, showing statistically significant differences between teachers with contracts of less than three months compared to those with indefinite contracts, and those with contracts of between three months and one year compared to those with indefinite contracts (See Table 5 and Table 6).
Finally, concerning the educational sector where the participants work, there are statistically significant differences in the environmental dimension, F (2, 1627) = 3.70, p = 002, η2 = 0.011, showing differences in scores between those working in preschool education and those in primary education (higher scores for primary education teachers), between the preschool education and high school teachers (higher scores for high school teachers) and between preschool education and university teachers (higher scores for university teachers). However, in these cases, the effect sizes were small (See Table 5 and Table 6).

4. Discussion

The main objective of this research was to study the quality of life of teachers at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year during a pandemic. The results have revealed that teachers have shown the highest levels of perceived quality of life in the psychological health dimension, followed by the physical health dimension, the social relationships dimension, and the environmental dimension.
First, the environmental dimension includes factors such as the perception of freedom, physical security, health, and social care, the domestic environment, opportunities to acquire new information and skills or participation, and opportunities for leisure activities [33,34]. All these factors have been affected by restrictive measures and social distancing. Moreover, health and social care could also be affected by the collapse of the health system during the pandemic [35]. However, studies conducted before the pandemic also showed lower scores in the environmental domain [18,20,36]. Therefore, although the pandemic may have influenced this domain, teachers already perceived low environmental quality of life [36].
Second, the social relations dimension includes facets of personal relationships, social support, and sexual activity [33,34]. Among these, interpersonal relationships have been restricted by the measures implemented to cope with COVID-19. When this study was carried out in Spain, people could congregate in groups of no more than 10 people. Further, loneliness and lack of social support have been characteristic emotions experienced during this pandemic, particularly during lockdown [37]. In studies conducted before the pandemic, teachers scored highest in the area of social relationships, and therefore it is possible that the pandemic has had an impact on this dimension [38,39].
Third, the physical health dimension includes factors such as activities of daily living, energy and fatigue, sleep and rest, and ability to work [33,34]. It should be noted that the WHO has already highlighted pandemic fatigue as one of the consequences of COVID-19 [9,40], and several studies suggest that the pandemic has led to an increase in sleep problems [41,42]. Finally, regarding the ability to work, we must remember that teachers had to adapt first to an online teaching modality in record time [43,44,45], and now face a new academic year full of uncertainty regarding their teaching activity [7]. However, the present study suggests that the physical dimension of the teachers is one of the least threatened, compared with previous scores [27,39], so it would not be a major concern for this population.
Fourth, this study indicates that it is in the dimension of psychological health where the greatest quality of life is perceived. Although, in this scale, emotional health is measured from a very wide prism, we must point out that in other studies carried out with the same sample, it was found that these teachers showed worrying levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. For example, 50.6% of teachers indicated that they suffer from stress, 49.5% from anxiety, and 32.2% from depression [46].
The results have also revealed significant differences in perceived quality of life depending on personal and professional variables. Although most studies in the literature have pointed out that men usually have a higher perception of quality of life than women [26,27,47], this study has shown that men only have a higher perception of quality of life in the environmental dimension. Women even show a greater perceived quality of life in the social relationships dimension. Other studies conducted before the pandemic with teachers also reported a poorer quality of life among women [18].
Therefore, the fact that women showed a higher perceived quality of life in the dimension of social relationships could be as feelings of isolation and loneliness during this pandemic have particularly affected women [31,48], so the return to work may have alleviated some of those symptoms. That is, for them, it has been a greater relief to be able to meet their peers again, as these interpersonal relationships relieve stress and provide support and motivation to cope with the pandemic situation. In addition to analyzing these results, the uniqueness of the sample must also be taken into account, given the higher predominance of females in the teaching profession.
Regarding age, similar to previous studies, a significantly worse perception of quality of life has been found in older people [30]. Our findings are in accord with a study conducted in China, at least in the psychological quality of life dimension. In this study, the older teachers showed the greatest levels of psychological distress [49]. Our study confirms that older teachers perceive a worse quality of life beyond the psychological level in the dimension of physical health and social relations. However, surprisingly, they have the highest perceived quality of life in the environmental dimension. One of the reasons why older teachers may have a worse perceived quality of life could be as, in this new situation, the adaptability to new technologies is essential, and this group of teachers are usually less interested and have lower-level skills in Information and Communication technologies [50]. In studies conducted before the pandemic, older teachers had shown better [51] or similar [27] quality of life to other teachers. Therefore, it can also be concluded that the pandemic may have affected the perceived quality of life of older teachers.
Concerning differences according to chronic illness, teachers who live with a chronically ill person have worse self-perception of quality of life than those who do not. This was found for all quality of life dimensions. These results were expected, as people with chronic diseases have been the most vulnerable in the current pandemic [52], so teachers may be afraid of infecting their families. What is remarkable is that the same results were not found among people with chronic diseases. In other words, people with chronic illness have only perceived significantly lower quality of life in psychological health and environment dimensions. Therefore, caregivers must be considered, particularly in times of a pandemic, as their quality of life can be substantially affected. They would therefore need special support, as noted in previous studies [53,54]. The results also show that the highest perceived quality of life in the dimensions of psychological health and environment is shown by people with indefinite contracts. Several investigations have analyzed the impact of job insecurity on teachers, and have pointed out that this factor can have important psychological consequences. Moreover, it has also been demonstrated that persistent and long-term unemployment and precarious employment cause a significant deterioration in the perception of environmental quality of life [24]. Likewise, the world economic crisis derived from COVID-19 is putting many jobs at risk, and lack of secure employment is becoming an aggravated problem in Spain [55].
Concerning the educational sector where teachers work, it should be considered that face-to-face teaching was resumed in the 2020–21 academic year in Spain. However, each of the academic sectors established a different teaching scenario. On the one hand, compulsory basic education and secondary education adopted very restrictive safety measures, but opted for fully face-to-face teaching. On the other hand, university education had instructions for semi-face-to-face, bimodal, or even online training in some cases. Therefore, these particularities are factors that could make teachers’ perceptions vary, depending on the academic level at which they teach. Specifically, it was found that preschool teachers have shown lower levels of perceived quality of life in the environmental dimension. Given that this quality of life dimension includes factors such as physical safety and health safety, it may be that teachers who work with the youngest children and in a fully face-to-face mode do not perceive their work to be safe, especially when compared to university teachers who have much less contact, as in many cases, classes were relaunched in an online or bimodal mode. This may also be as children under five years are not obliged to use masks in Spain, and it may also be more difficult for these children to understand and follow hygiene and social distancing measures [56]. However, it should be remembered that infections among younger children are fewer [57], although it is logical that teachers may feel this lack of safety due to all the uncertainty and unknowns that this pandemic has brought.
One of the strengths of the present study is that, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first study to examine the quality of life of teachers in the reopening of schools after the lockdown period and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, this research also has some relevant practical implications. First, as long as restrictive measures remain active to stop the pandemic, it will be important to redefine educational centers (schools, high-schools, and universities) as spaces where physical safety, health, and social care, accessibility, and opportunities to acquire new information and skills and participate in leisure activities are reinforced for teachers. In addition, although it is necessary to continue to maintain social distancing, it would also be relevant to try to promote personal relations and especially social support by putting in place, for example, professional online support networks.
Finally, beyond preventing infections, teachers’ health and wellbeing will also be linked to the physical and psychological dimensions examined in this study. In other words, overall wellbeing must be promoted from a holistic perspective among teachers, reinforcing actions for older teachers, the chronically ill, and those who are caregivers or work in preschool education. In the same vein, to ensure the quality of life of teachers, it would also be important to guarantee their job stability.
However, this study also has several limitations. First, a non-probabilistic sample was recruited, which may have a certain selection bias as participation was voluntary, and it is likely that only those who were particularly emotionally impacted would have participated. Therefore, future studies should include a more balanced probabilistic sample concerning gender and recruit participants from other autonomous communities. Second, this is also a cross-sectional study, and further follow-up will help us to draw more valid conclusions. Third, relatively few studies have been conducted on the pre-pandemic quality of life of Spanish teachers. This has limited the possibility of comparing previous results with current outcomes. Finally, no studies have been conducted with the general population in Spain using the WHOQOL-Brief instrument, limiting the comparison of our findings with those of other studies.

5. Conclusions

From the results presented in this article, it can be concluded that teachers’ quality of life in a pandemic differs according to the dimension analyzed, along with both personal and professional characteristics. In the current COVID-19 pandemic context, ensuring health and wellbeing is key at a global level. However, to achieve the wellbeing of the population, a strong and healthy education system is necessary. In this equation, the quality of life of teachers is crucial. That is, the health status and wellbeing of teachers are key to their ability to support the wellbeing of their students, and this assumption makes it essential to recognize the importance of the quality of life of teachers during this pandemic. Therefore, it is important to take measures and provide resources for teachers to increase their wellbeing in the dimensions of physical health, psychological health, social relations, and environment, paying special attention to those teachers who are most vulnerable. Such measures could then serve to protect the health and wellbeing of both teachers and students, which, in turn, would help to develop and maintain quality education. In this regard, research that examines the specific needs of teachers in this unprecedented situation is fundamental for developing realistic strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.I.M. and N.O.-E.; methodology, N.B.S. and M.D.S.; formal analysis, N.B.S. and M.D.S.; investigation, N.I.M. and N.O.-E.; Data curation, N.B.S. and M.D.S. writing—original draft preparation, N.I.M. and N.O.-E.; and Writing—review and editing, N.B.S. and M.D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by KideOn Research Group of the Basque Government, Ref.: IT1342-19 (A category) and R + d + i Projects Research Challenges of the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation, grant number PID2020-119011RB-100 EDU.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of (CEISH) of the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU [M10/2020/055].

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, N.O.-E. The data are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Press Conference by the President of the Government after the Extraordinary Council of Ministers on the Coronavirus. Presidency of the Government of Spain. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  2. Declaring the State of Alarm for the Management of the Health Crisis Situation Caused by COVID-19. 14 March 2020. Available online: (accessed on 1 February 2021).
  3. Viner, R.M.; Russell, S.J.; Croker, H.; Packer, J.; Ward, J.; Stansfield, C.; Mytton, O.; Bonell, C.; Booy, R. School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  5. La Desescalada en Educación ya es una Realidad en Toda España, Aunque de Manera Dispar Entre las Comunidades. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  6. Inicio del Curso Escolar 2020–2021 en Euskadi y Datos Actualizados del COVID-19 en Euskadi. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  7. Lucas, B. Qué Temen Alumnos, Padres y Docentes de la Vuelta al Colegio; El País: Madrid, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Besser, A.; Lotem, S.; Zeigler-Hill, V. Psychological Stress and Vocal Symptoms among University Professors in Israel: Implications of the Shift to Online Synchronous Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Voice 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Constitution of the World Health Organization; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1946; Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  10. World Health Organization. Health Promotion: A Discussion Document on the Concept and Principles: Summary Report of The Working Group on Concept and Principles of Health Promotion, Copenhagen, Denmark, 9–13 July 1984; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  11. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  12. Armitage, R.; Nellums, L.B. Considering inequalities in the school closure response to COVID-19. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Berasategi, N.; Idoiaga, N.; Dosil, M.; Eiguren, A. Design and Validation of a Scale for Measuring Wellbeing of Children in Lockdown (WCL). Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Burgess, S.; Sievertsen, H.H. Schools, Skills, and Learning: The Impact of COVID-19 on Education; VoxEu. Org; 2020; Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  15. Francis, N.N.; Pegg, S. Socially distanced school-based nutrition program under COVID 19 in the rural Niger Delta. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2020, 7, 576–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Idoiaga Mondragon, N.; Berasategi Sancho, N.; Dosil Santamaria, M.; Eiguren Munitis, A. Struggling to breathe: A qualitative study of children’s wellbeing during lockdown in Spain. Psychol. Health 2021, 36, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Idoiaga, N.; Berasategi, N.; Eiguren, A.; Picaza, M. Exploring children’s social and emotional representations of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fernandes, M.H.; Rocha, V.M.d. Impact of the psychosocial aspects of work on the quality of life of teachers. Braz. J. Psychiatry 2009, 31, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  19. Guevara Rivas, H.; Domínguez Montiel, A. Calidad de vida del docente universitario vista desde la Complejidad. Rev. Cuba De Salud Pública 2011, 37, 314–323. [Google Scholar]
  20. Penteado, R.Z. Pereira, Isabel Maria Teixeira Bicudo. Quality of life and vocal health of teachers. Rev. Saúde Pública 2007, 41, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  21. Rocha, V.M.D.; Fernandes, M.H. Qualidade de vida de professores do ensino fundamental: Uma perspectiva para a promoção da saúde do trabalhador. J. Bras. Psiquiatr. 2008, 57, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Yang, X.; Ge, C.; Hu, B.; Chi, T.; Wang, L. Relationship between quality of life and occupational stress among teachers. Public Health 2009, 123, 750–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zagalaz, M.L.; Lara, A.; Torres, G.; Cachón, J. Reflexiones sobre salud y calidad de vida del profesorado. Arte Mov. 2009, 17, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Kowalska, M.; Szemik, S. Zdrowie i jakość życia a aktywność zawodowa. Med. Pr. 2016, 67, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  25. Bonsaksen, T. Exploring gender differences in quality of life. Ment. Health Rev. J. 2012, 17, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  26. Hajian-Tilaki, K.; Heidari, B.; Hajian-Tilaki, A. Are gender differences in health-related quality of life attributable to socio-demographic characteristics and chronic disease conditions in elderly people? Int. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 8, 95. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tabeleão, V.P.; Tomasi, E.; Neves, S.F. Qualidade de vida e esgotamento profissional entre docentes da rede pública de Ensino Médio e Fundamental no Sul do Brasil. Cad. Saúde Pública 2011, 27, 2401–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maniecka-Bryła, I.; Gajewska, O.; Burzyńska, M.; Bryła, M. Factors associated with self-rated health (SRH) of a University of the Third Age (U3A) class participants. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2013, 57, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ozamiz Etxebarria, N.; Ionescu Vlad, C.; Ortiz Jáuregui, M.A. Calidad de vida en personas jubiladas que estudian en la Universidad del País Vasco. Educ. Méd. Super 2019, 33, e1749. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ping, W.; Zheng, J.; Niu, X.; Guo, C.; Zhang, J.; Yang, H.; Shi, Y. Evaluation of health-related quality of life using EQ-5D in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N.; Idoiaga Mondragon, N.; Dosil Santamaría, M.; Picaza Gorrotxategi, M. Psychological Symptoms during the Two Stages of Lockdown in Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Investigation in a Sample of Citizens in Northern Spain. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. KizhakkeVeettil, A.; Whedon, J.; Schmalzl, L.; Hurwitz, E.L. Yoga for Quality of Life in Individuals With Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 2019, 25, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Whoqol Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol. Med. 1998, 28, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  34. Espinoza, I.; Osorio, P.; Torrejón, M.J.; Lucas-Carrasco, R.; Bunout, D. Validación del cuestionario de calidad de vida (WHOQOL-BREF) en adultos mayores chilenos. Rev. Méd. Chile 2011, 139, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Legido-Quigley, H.; Mateos, J.T.; Campos, V.R.; Sánchez, M.G.; Muntaner, C.; McKee, M. The resilience of the Spanish health system against the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e251–e252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Tavares, D.D.F.; de Oliveira, R.A.R.; Rômulo José Mota, J.; Oliveira, C.E.P.; Marins, J.C.B. Quality of life of basic education teachers of public schools. Braz. J. Health Promot. 2015, 28, 191–197. [Google Scholar]
  37. Luchetti, M.; Lee, J.H.; Aschwanden, D.; Sesker, A.; Strickhouser, J.E.; Terracciano, A.; Sutin, A.R. The trajectory of loneliness in response to COVID-19. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 897–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pereira, E.F.; Teixeira, C.S.; Lopes Ada, S. Quality of life of elementary education teachers in Florianópolis, State of Santa Catarina. Cien. Saude Colet. 2013, 18, 1963–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  39. Tabeleão, V.P.; Tomasi, E.; Neves, S.F. Quality of life and burnout among public high school and primary school teachers in Southern Brazil. Cad. Saude Publica 2011, 27, 2401–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. World Health Organization. WHO/Europe Discusses How to Deal with Pandemic Fatigue. Available online: (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  41. Altena, E.; Baglioni, C.; Espie, C.A.; Ellis, J.; Gavriloff, D.; Holzinger, B.; Schlarb, A.; Frase, L.; Jernelöv, S.; Riemann, D. Dealing with sleep problems during home confinement due to the COVID-19 outbreak: Practical recommendations from a task force of the European CBT-I Academy. J. Sleep Res. 2020, 29, e13052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grossman, E.S.; Hoffman, Y.S.; Palgi, Y.; Shrira, A. COVID-19 related loneliness and sleep problems in older adults: Worries and resilience as potential moderators. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2021, 168, 110371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rasmitadila, R.; Aliyyah, R.R.; Rachmadtullah, R.; Samsudin, A.; Syaodih, E.; Nurtanto, M.; Tambunan, A.R.S. The Perceptions of Primary School Teachers of Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period: A Case Study in Indonesia. J. Ethn. Cult. Stud. 2020, 7, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. König, J.; Jäger-Biela, D.J.; Glutsch, N. Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 608–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rapanta, C.; Botturi, L.; Goodyear, P.; Guàrdia, L.; Koole, M. Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigit. Sci. Educ. 2020, 2, 923–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N.; Berasategi Santxo, N.; Idoiaga Mondragon, N.; Dosil Santamaría, M. The psychological state of teachers during the COVID-19 crisis: The challenge of returning to face-to-face teaching. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 3861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kobayasi, R.; Tempski, P.Z.; Arantes-Costa, F.M.; Martins, M.A. Gender differences in the perception of quality of life during internal medicine training: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Palgi, Y.; Shrira, A.; Ring, L.; Bodner, E.; Avidor, S.; Bergman, Y.; Cohen-Fridel, S.; Keisari, S.; Hoffman, Y. The loneliness pandemic: Loneliness and other concomitants of depression, anxiety and their comorbidity during the COVID-19 outbreak. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 275, 109–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, Q.; Miao, Y.; Zeng, X.; Tarimo, C.S.; Wu, C.; Wu, J. Prevalence and factors for anxiety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic among the teachers in China. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 277, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Song, Y.; Chen, Y. Information and communication technology among early and late middle-aged adults in urban China: Daily use and anticipated support in old age. Australas. J. Ageing 2019, 38, e85–e92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sanchez, H.M.; Sanchez, E.G.M.; Barbosa, M.A.; Guimarães, E.C.; Porto, C.C. Impact of health on quality of life and quality of working life of university teachers from different areas of knowledge. Cien. Saude Colet. 2019, 24, 4111–4123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dong, X.C.; Li, J.M.; Bai, J.Y.; Liu, Z.Q.; Zhou, P.H.; Gao, L.; Li, X.Y.; Zhang, Y. Epidemiological characteristics of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Tianjin. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi = Zhonghua Liuxingbingxue Zazhi 2020, 41, 638–642. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Mohile, S.; Dumontier, C.; Mian, H.; Loh, K.P.; Williams, G.R.; Wildes, T.M.; Boyd, K.; Ramsdale, E.; Pyne, S.; Magnuson, A.; et al. Perspectives from the Cancer and Aging Research Group: Caring for the vulnerable older patient with cancer and their caregivers during the COVID-19 crisis in the United States. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2020, 11, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Prasad, S.; Holla, V.V.; Neeraja, K.; Surisetti, B.K.; Kamble, N.; Yadav, R.; Kumar Pal, P. Parkinson’s disease and COVID-19: Perceptions and implications in patients and caregivers. Mov. Disord. 2020, 35, 912–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Torres, R.; Fernández, M.J. La política económica española y el COVID-19. Funcas Cuad. Inf. Econ. 2020, 275, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lopez, A.S.; Hill, M.; Antezano, J.; Vilven, D.; Rutner, T.; Bogdanow, L.; Claflin, C.; Kracalik, I.T.; Fields, V.L.; Dunn, A.; et al. Transmission dynamics of COVID-19 outbreaks associated with child care facilities—Salt Lake City, Utah, April–July 2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Walger, P.; Heininger, U.; Knuf, M.; Exner, M.; Popp, W.; Fischbach, T.; Trapp, S.; Hübner, J.; Herr, C.; Simon, A.; et al. Children and adolescents in the CoVid-19 pandemic: Schools and daycare centers are to be opened again without restrictions. The protection of teachers, educators, carers and parents and the general hygiene rules do not conflict with this. GMS Hyg. Infect. Control. 2020, 15, Doc11. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Table 1. Means and standard deviations in quality-of-life scores according to gender and age.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations in quality-of-life scores according to gender and age.
GendernMeanStandard Derivation
Physical healthFemale129311.172.02
Psychological healthFemale129311.462.03
Social relationshipsFemale12939.982.77
Physical health23–3545111.472.16
Psychological health23–3545111.792.09
Social relationships23–3545110.433.00
Table 2. Student’s t-test results according to gender and age.
Table 2. Student’s t-test results according to gender and age.
Dimensions WHOQOL−BREF
Physical health−1.4416210.151
Psychological health−0.79816210.425
Social relationships2.6416210.008 *0.16
Environment−2.4216210.016 *−0.15
AgeFdfpη2Post hoc
Physical health5.5020.004 **0.0071−2;1−3
Psychological health8.4920.001 ***0.0101−2;1−3
Social relationships12.1820.001 ***0.0151−2;1−3
Environment3.6520.026 *0.0041−3;2−3
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table 3. Means and standard deviations in quality-of-life scores according to whether the participants have a chronic illness or are living with a chronically ill person.
Table 3. Means and standard deviations in quality-of-life scores according to whether the participants have a chronic illness or are living with a chronically ill person.
Chronic IllnessnMSD
Physical healthYes27311.001.93
Psychological healthYes27311.042.15
Social relationshipsYes2739.642.86
Living with a chronically ill personnMSD
Physical healthYes29610.832.06
Psychological healthYes29610.942.19
Social relationshipsYes2969.292.65
Table 4. Student’s t test results according to whether participants have a chronic illness or are living with a chronically ill person.
Table 4. Student’s t test results according to whether participants have a chronic illness or are living with a chronically ill person.
Dimensions WHOQOL−BREF
Chronic Illnesstdfpd
Physical health−10.8216310.0680.12
Psychological health−30.8416310.001 ***0.25
Social relationships−10.6116260.1060.10
Environment−30.8016310.001 ***0.24
Living with a chronically ill persontdfpd
Physical health−30.5016310.001 ***0.23
Psychological health−40.9116310.001 ***0.32
Social relationships−40.0616310.001 ***0.26
Environment−70.0216310.001 ***0.45
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations in quality-of-life scores according to length of contract in months (job stability) and workplace.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations in quality-of-life scores according to length of contract in months (job stability) and workplace.
Months of ContractnMSD
Physical healthLess than three months5411.102.12
Between 3 months and one year1021.0862.31
One year50311.152.01
Indefinite contract97411.281.98
Psychological healthLess than three months5410.982.20
Between 3 months and one year10211.532.00
One year50311.332.08
Indefinite contract97411.572.04
Social relationshipsLess than three months5410.172.98
Between 3 months and one year1029.913.12
One year5039.792.95
Indefinite contract9749.922.71
EnvironmentLess than three months549.291.60
Between 3 months and one year1029.461.91
One year5039.711.97
Indefinite contract9749.871.85
Educational sector nMSD
Physical healthPreschool Education30911.141.95
Primary Education53011.282.04
Obligatory Secondary Education 49111.132.04
Sixth Form College 8911.651.79
University studies12310.972.09
Vocational training9111.302.14
Psychological healthPreschool Education30911.342.00
Primary Education53011.602.03
Compulsory Secondary Education49111.372.05
Sixth Form College 8911.722.19
University studies12311.612.12
Vocational training9111.422.30
Social relationshipsPreschool Education3099.782.79
Primary Education53010.092.78
Compulsory Secondary Education4919.852.82
Sixth Form College 899.812.97
University studies1239.412.69
Vocational training919.963.10
EnvironmentPreschool Education3099.451.91
Primary Education5309.761.81
Compulsory Secondary Education4919.781.86
Sixth Form College 8910.212.17
University studies12310.131.82
Vocational training919.921.98
Table 6. Student’s t-test results according to length of contract in months (job stability) and workplace.
Table 6. Student’s t-test results according to length of contract in months (job stability) and workplace.
Dimensions WHOQOL-BREF
Months of ContractFdfpη2Post hoc
Physical health1.5416290.2020.003
Psychological health2.6516290.0470.0051–4
Social relationships0.41516240.7430.001
Educational SectorFdfpη2Post hoc
Physical health1.5916270.1600.004
Psychological health1.2816270.2680.004
Social relationships1.4116220.2180.003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Idoiaga Mondragon, N.; Berasategi Sancho, N.; Dosil Santamaria, M.; Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N. Reopening of Schools in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Quality of Life of Teachers While Coping with This New Challenge in the North of Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7791.

AMA Style

Idoiaga Mondragon N, Berasategi Sancho N, Dosil Santamaria M, Ozamiz-Etxebarria N. Reopening of Schools in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Quality of Life of Teachers While Coping with This New Challenge in the North of Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(15):7791.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Idoiaga Mondragon, Nahia, Naiara Berasategi Sancho, Maria Dosil Santamaria, and Naiara Ozamiz-Etxebarria. 2021. "Reopening of Schools in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Quality of Life of Teachers While Coping with This New Challenge in the North of Spain" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 15: 7791.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop