Next Article in Journal
From Global Goals to Classroom Realities: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Promoting Teacher Wellbeing in Higher Education
Previous Article in Journal
Tribological Performance of ZnO Green Particles as Lubricating Oil Additives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/su16166814
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Psychosocial Risks in Non-University Teachers: A Comparative Study between Spain and Mexico on Their Occupational Health

by
Lucía Sanchis-Giménez
1,
Alicia Tamarit
1,
Vicente Javier Prado-Gascó
1,
Laura Sánchez-Pujalte
2 and
Luis Díaz-Rodríguez
3,*
1
Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Speech Therapy, Universitat de Valencia, Blasco Ibáñez 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain
2
Faculty of Education, International University of Valencia, 46002 Valencia, Spain
3
Faculty of Pedagogy, Universidad Pedagógica del Estado de Sinaloa, Calle Castiza s/n, Col. Cuauhtemoc, Culiacán 80027, SI, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6814; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166814
Submission received: 30 May 2024 / Revised: 31 July 2024 / Accepted: 6 August 2024 / Published: 8 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Health, Well-Being and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Psychosocial risks seem to have a great impact on non-university teachers, giving rise to consequences such as burnout, health problems, and lack of engagement. These consequences result from high levels of stress, caused by an imbalance between demands and resources at work. Socio-cultural differences between Spain and Mexico, such as fewer educational resources and higher job insecurity in Mexico, can lead to a disparity in burnout rates, disproportionately impacting the occupational health in teachers from these countries. Thus, this study aims to (1) analyse psychosocial risks in two samples; (2) evaluate the relationships between demands, resources, and consequences; and (3) study the moderating effect of country on these relationships. Participants were 169 Spanish teachers and 218 Mexican teachers. Results showed that Spanish teachers experienced more role conflict, interpersonal conflict, work overload, and job insecurity. In both countries, work overload was the strongest predictor of burnout and health problems. Engagement was positively influenced by social support and autonomy in both contexts, with autonomy being the strongest predictor in Mexico. The type of country only moderated the relationship between job insecurity and burnout, being stronger in the case of Mexico. These findings provide crucial insights for the development of intervention programs aimed at reducing workload, managing conflicts, and enhancing social support, thus contributing to the social sustainability of the teaching profession.

1. Introduction

The management of psychosocial risks is one of the most complex challenges in the field of occupational health [1]. It is a reality that seems to affect workers substantially and in a similar way regardless of the country of reference. In this sense, according to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [2], between 18% and 60% of workers reported having problems due to psychosocial factors at work, and these numbers are similar to those found in Spain [3] and in other non-European countries such as the USA [4] or Canada [5]. It is considered to be an equally serious problem in the Latin American context, being similar or even more problematic, as is the case of Chile [6], Mexico [7], Ecuador [8], and Argentina [9] to mention just some examples. Looking at these risks, it is crucial to effectively manage them in order to foster a sustainable work environment that promotes the well-being and long-term productivity of workers globally [10].
This issue not only affects the work environment but all aspects that play a role in maintaining social sustainability, health, and engagement at an individual level and the cultural aspects of community at a broader, societal level [11]. Thus, socio-cultural and economic contexts influence occupational health outcomes, which in turn affect productivity, engagement, and public health, impacting social sustainability as a whole [12]. In this picture, the literature observes that the most significant aspects related to worker’s occupational health, which also reflect cultural differences in work settings, are psychosocial risks [13].
Psychosocial risks can be considered aspects related to the design of work and the social, organizational, and work management contexts that can cause both physical and psychological damage [14], highlighting stress or burnout as one of the main consequences [15,16,17]. Beyond the prevalence itself, it is worth asking how psychosocial risks affect the health of workers and organizations.
From the organizational point of view, the risks seem to be related to high absenteeism from the workplace [18], an increase in accidents at work [19], and sick leave [20], as well as a rise in personnel turnover [10], among other aspects that can produce a decrease in business productivity. Regarding workers, the main consequences include the appearance of high levels of burnout [21], low satisfaction [22], a decrease in performance [23], the appearance of physical and mental health problems [24], musculoskeletal disorders [25], insomnia [26], fatigue [27], and immune system problems [28], among others.
On the contrary, although most studies on psychosocial risks focus on negative consequences [29], it has been observed that correct risk management has positive effects on workers, increasing their satisfaction and motivation [30], improving their levels of well-being and mental health [31], and increasing their involvement or engagement [32], which results in improved productivity. All of these consequences result from high levels of stress continued over time due to a mismatch between the worker and their working conditions [33], but what is the mechanism causing these levels of stress?
To explain this process, different models have emerged over the years [21], among the most important being the demand–control model [34,35], which is one of the most widely used, and the UNIPSICO model [36], a popular model representing the state of the art in this area. According to Karasek’s (1979) [34] demand–control model, the appearance of stress at work depends on two aspects: (1) the psychological demands of the task and (2) the control that the worker has. Demands refer to all those aspects that require mental effort on the part of the worker, while control refers to the possibility of controlling said demands. This model establishes that high levels of demands and low levels of control correspond to the highest levels of stress. On the other hand, the UNIPSICO model by Gil-Monte (2014) [36] represents a synthesis of the model described above and many others and combines both the antecedents of stress (demands and resources) and the consequences considering the different organizational facets. From this perspective, when there is an imbalance between the demands of the job and the resources available to the worker to face these demands, stress arises, which, when perpetuated over time, gives rise to the so-called consequences [36]. The present investigation will be based on this last model as it is the most complete, including not only antecedents but also consequences of stress. Thus, it is crucial to analyse the demands, resources and consequences of work-related stress on workers and how they may affect their mental health.
Some of the most commonly considered demands that are related to these consequences are role conflict [37], role ambiguity (lack of role clarity) [38], interpersonal conflicts [39], inequality [40], work overload [41], and job insecurity [42], while the most common resources also related to these consequences are social support [43] and autonomy [44]. The consequences that will be addressed in this study are health problems [45,46], burnout [47], and engagement [48,49].
All professions are susceptible to suffering from the reality described above [22]; however, it seems that the teaching sector is one of the most affected [50,51,52], and more specifically non-university teachers [53,54,55]. In addition to the common challenges encountered by workers, professionals in this field also encounter demands inherent to their job. In the case of teaching professionals, some of them are following a large number of regulations, carrying out administrative tasks and a heavy bureaucratic burden in addition to their teaching work [56], conflicts with families apart from colleagues and students [57], a shortage of resources [58], a high number of teaching hours [59], low social valuation [60], and the lack of knowledge of occupational risk prevention regulations [61], among others.
Consequences, demands, and resources can be affected by socio-cultural characteristics [11], reflected in the disparities between Spain and Mexico. For example, in Mexico, there is a smaller number of resources in education [62], a more collectivist culture, a greater sense of obedience [63], and higher levels of violence [64], which may suggest higher levels of demands and fewer resources in Mexico, which in turn would result in a greater prevalence of negative consequences and/or a greater impact of said antecedents [65]. In this sense, taking the case of burnout as an example, the value in Spain is around 16% of the population [66], while in Mexico, this value is above 17% [67,68]. Despite these differences, there is scientific interest in comparing teachers from Spain and Mexico: they share a common language, present a high prevalence of psychosocial risks in the teaching sector, and, as the previous literature indicates, they have undergone similar critical conditions in the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected teachers and their mental health in both countries during the same time frame [69].
However, despite its importance, there hardly seem to be any studies that analyse how the demand and resource factors described above can affect not only the negative consequences (burnout and health problems) but also the engagement of non-university teachers, considering the moderating roles of the origin countries (in this case, Spain and Mexico). Based on the literature reviewed, important questions arise: Is Mexico more vulnerable due to fewer resources compared to Spain [62], will the interplay among the variables observed in the UNIPSICO model [36] replicate, and will the country moderate these relationships? Stemming from these questions, the current study will formulate the main objectives, present findings, and provide a rationale on its contributions, filling a crucial gap in the literature.

Objectives and Hypotheses

This study presents three main aims, each with an associated hypothesis.
  • Objective 1. Analyse psychosocial risks in Spanish and Mexican non-university teachers.
H1: 
There will be statistically significant differences in psychosocial risks depending on the country, with higher risk levels in Mexican teachers.
  • Objective 2. Evaluate the relationships established between demand factors and resources as antecedents and burnout, health problems, and engagement as consequences in both countries.
H2: 
The following relationships between the study variables in both countries are expected (Figure 1).
  • Objective 3. Analyse the moderating effect of the country on the relationships between demands, resources, and consequences.
H3: 
The country will moderate the relationships between demands, resources, and consequences.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

In this study, two samples of non-university teachers were used, 169 Spanish teachers (sample 1) and 218 Mexican teachers (sample 2), where 74.6% (n = 126) of the Spanish sample were women and 16.6% (n = 28) were men. Meanwhile, 72.5% (n = 158) of the Mexican participants were women and 19.3% (n = 42) were men. Regarding age, the average of the Spanish teachers was 44.53 years (standard deviation (SD = 11.03; range = 19 to 65) and the Mexican teachers reached a value of 39.35 years (SD = 10.53; range = 23 to 73). As for teaching experience, the mean in the Spanish sample was 17.20 years (SD = 12.30; range = 0 to 59), while for Mexican teachers it was 14.79 years (SD = 12.53; range = 0 to 71). Regarding the type of contract, 7.8% of Spanish teachers had a temporary contract, 16.9% had an interim contract, and the remaining 75.3% had a permanent position. Meanwhile, in the sample of Mexican teachers, 9% had a temporary contract, 1.5% had an interim contract and 89.5% had a permanent position. Looking at the educational stage, 11% of Spanish teachers taught in the early childhood stage, 32.5% belonged to primary education, and 56.6% were in the secondary stage. In turn, 17.5% of Mexican teachers taught in the early childhood stage, 74.5% belonged to primary education, and 8% were in the secondary stage.

2.2. Instruments

In the current study, participants’ psychosocial risks have been examined. These variables are grouped into three categories: demands, resources, and consequences. All instruments presented adequate psychometric properties in previous studies [42,70], something that is also observed in the present research.

2.3. Demands

The demands were evaluated with the UNIPSICO battery [71] and the Job Insecurity Scale [72] to specifically evaluate job insecurity.
UNIPSICO Battery [71]. All scales are Likert type with 5 response options (0 = never; 4 = very frequently: every day), indicating that the higher the score, the higher the levels of the variable. The demands evaluated were as follows: (1) Role conflict: It refers to situations in which the worker must respond to contradictory instructions. This scale is made up of 5 items (e.g., I receive incompatible demands from two or more people). In the present study, it has also shown adequate psychometric properties (αSpain = 0.85; αMexico = 0.71; composite reliability (CR) Spain = 0.85; CRMexico = 0.76; average variance extracted (AVE) Spain = 0.62; AVEMexico = 0.48). Confirmatory factor analyses also confirmed the structure of the scale (χ2Spain = 6.67; χ2Mexico = 11.57; S-B χ2Spain = 5.27; S-B χ2Mexico = 5.27; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 5; dfMexico = 5; McDonalds’s Fit Index (MFI) Spain = 0.99; MFIMexico = 0.99; Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Spain = 0.04; RMSEAMexico = 0.05). (2) Role clarity: It refers to situations in which the worker is clear about what is expected of him or her, inverse to the demand for role ambiguity. It is made up of 5 items (e.g., I know the criteria with which I am evaluated) (αSpain = 0.84; αMexico = 0.85; CRSpain = 0.88; CRMexico = 0.88; AVESpain = 0.60; AVEMexico = 0.62; χ2Spain = 33.99; χ2Mexico = 65.44; S-B χ2Spain = 16.98; S-B χ2Mexico = 20.47; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 5; dfMexico = 5; MFISpain = 0.97; MFIMexico = 0.97; RMSEASpain = 0.11; RMSEAMexico = 0.05). (3) Interpersonal conflicts: It refers to the presence of conflicts with other teachers, students, and students’ families. It is made up of 6 items (e.g., How often do you have conflicts with students?) (αSpain = 0.81; αMexico = 0.77; CRSpain = 0.82; CRMexico = 0.77; AVESpain = 0.51; AVEMexico = 0.46; χ2Spain = 68.56; χ2Mexico = 100.20; S-B χ2Spain = 28.78; S-B χ2Mexico = 51.88; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 9; dfMexico = 9; MFISpain = 0.95; MFIMexico = 0.91; RMSEASpain = 0.10; RMSEAMexico = 0.15). (4) Inequity: It refers to the feeling of lack of organizational justice. It is made up of 5 items (e.g., I put more into my work than I get in return for it), with one item reversed (I receive enough rewards for the attention I give to the students) (αSpain = 0.82; αMexico = 0.64; CRSpain = 0.86; CRMexico = 0.67; AVESpain = 0.59; χ2Spain = 15.02; χ2Mexico = 16.11; S-B χ2Spain = 14.51; S-B χ2Mexico = 12.71; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 5; dfMexico = 5; MFISpain = 0.98; MFIMexico = 0.98; RMSEASpain = 0.09; RMSEAMexico = 0.08). (5) Work overload: It refers to the perception of both quantitative and qualitative overload. It is made up of 6 items (e.g., Does it happen to you that you do not have enough time to complete your work?), with one item reversed (Is it possible for you to work at a relaxed pace?) (αSpain = 0.75; αMexico = 0.75; CRSpain = 0.76; CRMexico = 0.79; AVESpain = 0.45; χ2Spain = 24.92; χ2Mexico = 27.10; S-B χ2Spain = 21.98; S-B χ2Mexico = 27.16; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 9; dfMexico = 9; MFISpain = 0.96; MFIMexico = 0.96; RMSEASpain = 0.08; RMSEAMexico = 0.09).
Job Insecurity Scale [72]. It refers to the worker’s perception of being able to lose their job. This scale is the Likert type with 5 response options (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree), indicating that the higher the score, the higher the levels of job insecurity. It is made up of 5 items (e.g., I feel insecure about the future of my job), with one item reversed (I am sure that I can keep my job) (αSpain = 0.93; αMexico = 0.77; CRSpain = 0.93; CRMexico = 0.81; AVESpain = 0.77; AVEMexico = 0.55; χ2Spain = 17.74; χ2Mexico = 11.98; S-B χ2Spain = 7.19; S-B χ2Mexico = 8.69; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 5; dfMexico = 5; MFISpain = 0.99; MFIMexico = 0.99; RMSEASpain = 0.05; RMSEAMexico = 0.06).

2.4. Resources

Resources were evaluated with the UNIPSICO Battery [71] with two scales: (1) Social support: It refers to the degree of support that teachers perceive from other teaching colleagues and superiors. This scale is made up of 6 items (e.g., Do you feel appreciated at work by your direct superior?) (αSpain = 0.91; αMexico = 0.86; CRSpain = 0.92; CRMexico = 0.89; AVESpain = 0.68; AVEMexico = 0.59; χ pain = 188.75; χ2Mexico = 210.82; S-B χ2Spain = 105.25; S-B χ2Mexico = 131.48; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 9; dfMexico = 9; MFISpain = 0.78; MFIMexico = 0.76; RMSEASpain = 0.23; RMSEAMexico = 0.25). (2) Autonomy: It refers to the degree of autonomy that workers perceive to manage their work. This scale is made up of 5 items (e.g., Work provides me with opportunities to use my initiative), with one item reversed (To do my job I depend on what my superior or direct boss tells me or orders) (αSpain = 0.84; αMexico = 0.83; CRSpain = 0.61; χ2Spain = 19.35; χ2Mexico = 18.47; S-B χ2Spain = 12.28; S-B χ2Mexico = 11.59; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 5; dfMexico = 5; MFISpain = 0.98; MFIMexico = 0.98; RMSEASpain = 0.08; RMSEAMexico = 0.08).

2.5. Consequences

The consequences were evaluated with a reduced version of the Burnout Syndrome Evaluation Questionnaire (CESQT) [73], the UNIPSICO Battery [71] for health problems, and the Ultra-Short Measure for Work Engagement UWES-3 [74] for engagement.
Evaluation of burnout syndrome at work (CESQT) [73]. For this work, a reduced version of 8 items was used, prepared by the research team with prior approval from the author. This scale is the Likert type with 5 response options (0 = never; 4 = very frequently: every day), indicating that the higher the score, the higher the levels of the variable. This instrument is made up of 20 items divided into 4 dimensions: (1) Excitement about work: It refers to the enthusiasm that the worker feels for carrying out the tasks associated with his or her job. (e.g., I feel excited about my job), this being an inverted item. (2) Emotional exhaustion: It refers to exhaustion at work, leading to reduced effectiveness (e.g., I feel overwhelmed by my job). (3) Indolence: It refers to cynicism towards the organization (e.g., I don’t feel like attending to some students). (4) Guilt: It refers to the appearance of regrets due to one’s performance at work (e.g., I feel guilty for some of my attitudes at work) (αSpain = 0.91; αMexico = 0.82; CRSpain = 0.85; CRMexico = 0.81; AVESpain = 0.45; AVEMexico = 0.42; χ2Spain = 474.99; χ2Mexico = 309.46; S-Bχ2Spain = 281; S-B χ2Mexico = 247.90; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 20; dfMexico = 20; MFISpain = 0.52; MFIMexico = 0.61; RMSEASpain = 0.26; RMSEAMexico = 0.22).
Health problems were evaluated with the UNIPSICO Battery [71]. This scale refers to complaints associated with respiratory, digestive, and cardiovascular disorders due to stress at work. It is made up of 9 items (e.g., Have you had any anxiety attacks?) (αSpain = 0.91; αMexico = 0.91; CRSpain = 0.91; CRMexico = 0.91; AVESpain = 0.57; AVEMexico = 0.58; χ2Spain = 108.46; χ2Mexico = 109.15; S-B χ2Spain = 69.22; S-B χ2Mexico = 77.25; pSpain > 0.05; pMexico > 0.05; dfSpain = 27; dfMexico = 27; MFISpain = 0.90; MFIMexico = 0.90; RMSEASpain = 0.09; RMSEAMexico = 0.09).
Ultra-Short Measure for Work Engagement UWES-3 [74]. This scale is a reduced version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) [75]. It refers to the worker’s involvement in his or her tasks. It is the Likert type with 5 response options (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), indicating that the higher the score, the higher the levels of the variable. It is made up of 3 items (e.g., I am immersed in my work) (αSpain = 0.79; αMexico = 0.71; CRSpain = 0.89; CRMexico = 0.77; AVESpain = 0.70; AVEMexico = 0.64).
Finally, an ad hoc questionnaire was developed to evaluate demographic variables, such as gender, age, type of contract, educational stage, and type of centre.

2.6. Procedure

To collect the data, a snowball sampling was carried out. First, different associations and educational institutions were contacted in order to contact non-university teachers and invite them by email to participate in the study. These data were collected during the period from May 2022 to November 2023. In this invitation, they were informed about the purpose of the research and were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their data. The approximate time of completion of the questionnaire was 35 min.
Inclusion criteria of the sample were:
(1)
Being a teacher at an institution other than a university.
(2)
Being actively working during the evaluation period.
(3)
Having signed the informed consent and the confidentiality agreement that is framed within the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.7. Data Analysis

As descriptive analyses, Cronbach’s alpha and t-tests for independent samples were calculated with SPSS Statistics 27 software [76]. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) were conducted using the EQS 6.4 for Windows 11 [77]. Finally, to evaluate the measurement model, the proposed structural model, and the moderating effect of the type of country on the model, partial least squares structural equation models (PLS-SEMs) and multigroup analysis (PLS-MGA) were conducted in SmartPLS v4.1.0.1 [78].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive analyses for the sample of Spanish teachers are presented in Table 1. The same statistics for the sample of Mexican teachers are presented in Table 2. Both show the mean, standard deviation, range, minimum, and maximum.
The mean values in Spain ranged between 0.67 (SD = 0.55) and 3.92 (SD = 0.85), with the lowest being the interpersonal conflict variable and the highest being engagement. Regarding the means of the variables in Mexico, values were obtained that were between 0.45 (SD = 0.47) and 3.94 (SD = 0.87), with the lowest being interpersonal conflicts and the highest being engagement, as seen in Spain.
However, Spanish teachers scored higher in variables such as role clarity (M = 3.26; SD = 0.82) and social support (M = 2.78; SD = 0.92). For their part, Mexican teachers scored higher in variables such as role clarity (M = 3.65; SD = 0.60) and autonomy (M = 2.65; SD = 0.90).
On the other hand, analyses were conducted in order to observe if there were significant differences in the work variables in the samples from Spain and Mexico. To achieve this, the Student’s t test statistic for independent samples was calculated for each of the variables.
As can be seen in Table 3, statistically significant differences were obtained depending on the country in the following variables: role conflict, t (309.69) = 3.05, p = 0.002; role clarity, t (304.75) = 5.49, p < 0.001; interpersonal conflicts, t (386) = 5.30, p < 0.001; work overload, t (385) = 4.85, p < 0.001; job insecurity, t (271.39) = 3.12, p = 0.002; social support, t (382) = 2.79, p = 0.006.
Therefore, at a general level, Spanish teachers presented higher levels in the variables of demands and resources, specifically in role conflict, interpersonal conflicts, work overload, job insecurity, and social support. Likewise, teachers in Mexico presented higher levels of role clarity.
With respect to the rest of the variables, no statistically significant differences were obtained depending on the country.

3.2. Reliability, Validity, and Relationship between the Variables

Before analysing the structural model as stated in the literature [79,80,81], the measurement models of Spain and Mexico were analysed, for which we calculated internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, assuming them as reflective models.
First, the internal consistency of the constructs was examined with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR). All values were found above the cut-off point of 0.70 in both countries [82]. Regarding convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) index was calculated. Most of the AVE values were higher than the reference value of 0.5 [82]. The results of each scale are presented in the section dedicated to the instruments.
Finally, to check discriminant validity, the heterotrait–monotrait correlation ratio (HTMT) was analysed. All values, both in the Spanish and Mexican samples, were below 0.85 and the 90% bootstrap confidence interval did not include the value one [83], so the discriminant validity applies to both countries.
Based on all the analyses carried out, the validity and reliability of the measurement model was confirmed. Next, the structural model was evaluated in both samples. To accomplish this, the significance levels of the path coefficients and the determination coefficients R2 were observed, both generated with the bootstrapping technique with 5000 samples.
The results obtained for the sample of Spanish teachers are shown in Figure 2, while those for the Mexican teachers are presented in Figure 3.
Based on the results, burnout was explained by 58.3% of the variance. It was found that the only demands that had a significant influence were interpersonal conflicts (β = 0.29, t = 4.49, p < 0.001), inequity (β = 0.22, t = 3.41, p < 0.001), and overload (β = 0.34, t = 4.26, p < 0.001). On the other hand, it seems that the only resource that significantly predicted burnout was social support (β = −0.16, t = 1.84, p < 0.05).
In the case of Mexico, for the prediction of burnout, the variables that were significant predictors explained 52.4% of the variance. It was found that the only demands that significantly predicted burnout levels were role clarity (β = −0.08, t = 1.78, p < 0.05), interpersonal conflicts (β = 0.15, t = 2.12, p < 0.01), job insecurity (β = 0.16, t = 2.80, p < 0.01), and work overload (β = 0.45, t = 5.52, p < 0.001). No resource turned out to be a significant predictor of burnout.
On the other hand, for the prediction of health problems in the Spanish case, it was found that the variables explained 43% of the variance for health problems. The results suggested that the demands that had a significant influence were role conflict (β = 0.28, t = 2.74, p < 0.01) and overload (β = 0.35, t = 4.24, p < 0.001). None of the resources were a significant predictor.
Considering the results for the Mexican teachers, the significant variables explained 29% of the variance for health problems. It was observed that the demands that had a positive influence were inequity (β = 0.16, t = 2.49, p < 0.01) and overload (β = 0.30, t = 3.15, p < 0.001). For the Mexican teachers, no resource was obtained as a significant predictor either.
Finally, in the Spanish case, 36.5% of the variance in engagement was explained by the variables that were significant predictors. The demands that had a significant influence were interpersonal conflicts (β = −0.16, t = 2.33, p < 0.01), inequity (β = −0.15, t = 1.70, p < 0.05), and overload (β = −0.21, t = 2.74, p < 0.01). Regarding resources, both social support (β = 0.19, t = 2.10, p < 0.05) and autonomy (β = 0.15, t = 1.85, p < 0.05) significantly predicted engagement.
In the Mexican sample, the predictor variables seemed to explain 26.6% of the variance in engagement. Specifically, the only variables that had a significant influence were social support resources (β = 0.19, t = 2.88, p < 0.01) and autonomy (β = 0.27, t = 3.24, p < 0.001). No demand turned out to be a significant predictor of engagement.

3.3. Moderating Effect of the Country on the Relationships between Demands, Resources, and Consequences

Once the models were evaluated in the two samples, the moderating effect of the country on the established relationships was analysed.
To evaluate the generalizability of the study model and make the subsequent comparison between groups, the procedure of Henseler et al. was carried out [84] for three-step measurement invariance (MICOM): (1) configural invariance, (2) compositional invariance, and (3) equality of means and variances. Testing for configural and compositional invariance confirms measurement invariance, allowing for multigroup analysis [82]. In this case, it was concluded that the model presented configural and compositional invariance since the correlations between the scores from Spain and Mexico did not differ significantly, with the exception of the engagement variable (r = 0.98, p < 0.001).
Once measurement invariance was examined, a multigroup analysis test (PLS-MGA) was performed. To evaluate the differences between the path coefficients between the two groups of countries, permutation p values were used. Significant differences were only obtained in the path coefficient of job insecurity on burnout, being higher in Mexico (Δβ = −0.17, p = 0.04). In this way, job insecurity is a greater predictor of burnout in Mexico. What is more, it predicts burnout in the opposite direction compared to Spain. In Spain, job insecurity seemed to predict burnout in a negative sense despite not being significant, while in Mexico, job insecurity predicts burnout in a positive sense. Regarding the rest of the path coefficients, no statistically significant differences were obtained (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Psychosocial risks are crucial to any professional sector as they can trigger serious problems in workers [85], organizations [86], and society as a whole [87]. Likewise, it has been seen that correct management of psychosocial risks is associated with more positive attitudes at work, greater motivation and satisfaction, fewer sick days, and greater performance [88].
As suggested by the UNIPSICO model [36], problems occur in response to a mismatch between the demands at work and the resources that the worker has to meet these demands, which gives rise to high levels of stress that, prolonged over time, can cause various consequences for workers, companies, and society itself. Among the consequences that psychosocial risks can have, role conflict, lack of role clarity, interpersonal conflicts, work overload, job insecurity, and inequality stand out, while the most important resources are social support and autonomy at work [69].
Although all professions can suffer these consequences, non-university teachers are one of the groups most present in the literature [89,90,91] since this group, in addition to being exposed to situations similar to any other worker, must also face stressful situations specific to their profession, such as carrying out administrative tasks or conflicts with colleagues, students, and their families. Although the prevalence of work stress and its main consequences are similar regardless of the country of reference [4,5,7], the literature suggests that cultural differences such as the resources allocated to education or violence rates in the country could influence how demands and resources affect consequences such as burnout, health problems, and engagement in teachers.

4.1. Objective Analysis

For all these reasons, the current study aimed to (1) analyse the psychosocial risks in Spanish and Mexican non-university teachers, (2) evaluate the relationships between demand factors and resources on burnout, health problems, and engagement, and (3) study whether the country of reference has a moderating effect on the relationships between demands, resources, and consequences. Based on the objectives and the literature review, three hypotheses emerged. First, it was hypothesised that there were significant differences in risk levels, with higher levels in Mexico (H1). Second, it was hypothesised that demands (with the exception of role clarity) positively predicted burnout and health problems and negatively predicted engagement, while resources and role clarity negatively predicted burnout and health problems and positively predicted engagement (H2). Finally, it was hypothesised that the country of reference moderated the relationships between demands, resources, and consequences (H3).
Considering Objective 1, it was seen that Spanish teachers scored high in variables such as engagement, role clarity, and social support. With respect to the Mexican sample, the highest levels were found in the same variables. However, with respect to the postulated hypothesis (H1), the results suggested that Spanish teachers presented higher levels of risk than Mexican teachers, with the exception of role clarity. For example, higher levels of role conflict, interpersonal conflict, work overload, and job insecurity were found. Higher levels of risk in Spanish teachers may be due to greater demands on working conditions compared to Mexico. This can lead teachers to be more critical and communicate their disagreements more frequently [92].
Regarding the influence of risks on the consequences of burnout, health problems, and engagement (Objective 2), it was expected that demand factors (role conflict, interpersonal conflicts, inequality, work overload, and job insecurity) would have a positive influence on burnout and health problems and negatively influence engagement, while the demand factors of role clarity and resources (social support and autonomy) negatively influenced burnout and health problems and positively influenced engagement, both in Spain and Mexico (H2).
For Spanish teachers, the hypothesis was partially accepted: Demands such as interpersonal conflicts, inequity, and overload were positively related to burnout. Among the demands with the greatest predictive power, work overload was in first place, followed by interpersonal conflicts and inequality. Similar results have been seen in other studies [39,93,94]. On the other hand, the only resource that seemed to be positively related to burnout was social support at work, as appears in Brooks et al. (2016) [95]. Regarding the prediction of health problems, in the Spanish sample it was observed that the demand that had the most positive influence was overload, as found by [29]. Regarding the prediction of positive consequences such as engagement, what was expected was also found with respect to the majority of demands and the two resources included in the study. The demand with the greatest predictive power was work overload, followed by social support and interpersonal conflicts. Similar results have been found in different studies [96,97]. However, contrary to what was hypothesised, job insecurity did not appear to significantly influence any consequence. This may be due to the fact that a large part of the Spanish sample was in possession of a permanent placement. In turn, it was found that role clarity did not significantly influence any consequence, the explanation for which could be because the teaching profession is subject to very specific regulations, which clearly specify what is expected of each teacher.
In the Mexican sample, the results also partially confirmed what was expected. The results showed that demands were positive predictors of burnout, specifically overload, with the greatest predictive power, followed by job insecurity and interpersonal conflicts. Studies on burnout obtained similar results [98]. Regarding health problems, it was observed that overload also had a positive influence, followed by inequity. Similar evidence is shown in the literature [46]. The rest of the variables were not significant. For example, in the case of social support, it may be because the instrument measures health problems by referring to psychosomatic complaints. It is possible that social support influences mental and non-physical health problems, as shown in various works [88,99]. Finally, in predicting engagement, only social support and autonomy resources were significant predictors, with autonomy standing out as the greatest predictor, as found in previous studies [48,100]. As for the demand factors, none seemed to have an influence on engagement despite the relationships being in the hypothesised direction.
Therefore, comparing Spain and Mexico, it was observed that the demand that most influenced the consequences was work overload, being the one that had the greatest predictive power in both countries. Another significant common demand was interpersonal conflicts over burnout, with a greater influence on Spanish teachers. On the other hand, it could be observed that resources in the case of Mexico played a smaller role in the negative consequences compared to those in Spain. However, engagement was influenced by social support and autonomy in both Spain and Mexico, with autonomy being the best predictor in Mexico.
Finally, with respect to the third objective, the country of reference was expected to significantly moderate the relationships between the antecedent variables and the consequences (H3). The results obtained show that only job insecurity predicts burnout differently in Spain compared to Mexico, exerting a greater influence in Mexico. This may have been due to the fact that, despite having a similar distribution depending on the type of contract, in Mexico there seems to be a greater sense of insecurity and greater general concern due to a lack of economic resources in the country compared to Spain, which leads to the feeling of being able to lose one’s job being more relevant in the appearance of burnout.

4.2. Limitations

This study has important contributions regarding the investigation of psychosocial risks and their main consequences, especially considering the influence that the country can have; however, despite the contributions, this study also has some limitations. For example, the sample was selected with a type of non-probabilistic sampling, which could make it difficult to generalize the results obtained. Regarding the distribution of the sample, an imbalance was found in the type of contract, with a high number of teachers in possession of a permanent position in both Spain and Mexico. Furthermore, data collection was through self-administered questionnaires, which could introduce bias in the teachers’ responses. Therefore, future studies should consider collecting data with probabilistic sampling, as well as the use of hetero-administered questionnaires or objective measures, such as the frequency of sick leave or staff turnover.

4.3. Conclusions

The current study aimed to analyse psychosocial risks in two samples, evaluating the relationships between demands, resources, and consequences, and analyse the moderating effect of country on these relationships. These results provide crucial findings that contribute to the current knowledge of cross-cultural research in the teaching sector. In this research, Spanish teachers experienced more role conflict, interpersonal conflict, work overload, and job insecurity than Mexican teachers, emphasising which areas to target in each cultural setting. Interestingly, work overload was the strongest predictor of burnout and health problems in both countries, together with engagement, which was positively influenced by social support and autonomy—the latter being the strongest predictor in Mexico. The country of reference only moderated the relationship between job insecurity and burnout, being stronger in the case of Mexico. These findings highlight key areas that will facilitate tailored interventions in each country as opposed to applying the same strategy in different cultural settings.

4.4. Implications and Future Research

Stemming from these results, this study offers important keys for different groups. First, it shows teachers the reality of their occupational health situation, allowing them to see that their perceptions about their work are shared. Second, it offers verification of a widely used empirical model comparing data from two different countries, as well as evidence on the psychometric properties of the instruments used, which can serve to justify their use in future work. And, finally, it offers managers and politicians keys to developing intervention programs focused above all on reducing workload, managing conflicts between workers, and social support, since they seem to be the elements that most influence the involvement and health of the teaching sector, both in Spain and Mexico. By analysing the interplay between demands, resources, and their consequences in different cultural contexts, this research provides insights into how social sustainability can be achieved in the educational sector. The findings contribute to the broader understanding of how workplace conditions and cultural differences impact teacher well-being, which is crucial for developing strategies that support sustainable development goals, particularly those related to quality education and decent work and economic growth. This study exemplifies the value of cross-cultural research in identifying universal patterns and developing customized solutions within the field of education.
In conclusion, this study showcases how cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural research can inform and advance sustainable development practices. By examining the psychosocial well-being of teachers and applying it to broader sustainability goals, we highlight the intricate relationship of occupational health, work conditions, and community. These insights are crucial for policymakers, educators, and researchers dedicated to creating supportive and sustainable environments that foster both individual well-being and collective societal progress.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.J.P.-G., L.S.-G., L.S.-P. and L.D.-R.; methodology, L.S.-G. and V.J.P.-G.; software, L.S.-G.; validation, V.J.P.-G., L.S.-G. and A.T.; formal analysis, L.S.-G.; investigation, V.J.P.-G., L.S.-P. and L.D.-R.; resources, L.S.-P. and L.D.-R.; data curation, L.S.-P. and L.D.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S.-G. and A.T.; writing—review and editing, L.S.-G. and A.T.; visualization, L.S.-G. and A.T.; supervision, V.J.P.-G.; project administration, V.J.P.-G., L.S.-P. and L.D.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the subject(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Valencia-Contrera, M.; Rivera-Rojas, F. Psychosocial occupational risks: A proposed definition. Med. J. Chile 2023, 151, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OSHA-EU). III Emerging Risks Survey. 2020. Available online: https://ketlib.lib.unipi.gr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/ket/945/Issue-2002-Developing-a-risk-prevention-culture-in-Europe.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  3. National Institute of Safety and Health at Work (INSST). Mental Health and Work; National Institute of Safety and Health at Work (INSST): Madrid, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. American Psychological Association (APA). 2023 Work in America Survey; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pfeffer, J. Work Is Killing Us: How to Improve Occupational Health; LID Business Publishing: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. La Rosa Cabrera, E.L. Psychosocial Risks and Quality of Work Life in Employees of Health Centers in Trujillo, 2023. [Final Degree Project, César Vallejo University]. Institutional Digital Repository of the César Vallejo University. 2023. Available online: https://repositorio.ucv.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12692/137121/LaRosa_CEL-SD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  7. Uribe-Prado, J.F. Psychosocial, burnout and psychosomatic risks in public sector workers. Adm. Res. 2020, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Silva-Peñaherrera, M.; Merino-Salazar, P.; Benavides, F.G.; López-Ruiz, M.; Gómez-García, A.R. Occupational health in Ecuador: A comparison with surveys on working conditions in Latin America. Rev. Bras. Saúde Ocup. 2020, 45, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ministry of Production and Labor (MPyT). National Survey of workers on Conditions of Employment, Work, Health and Safety [ECETSS] 2018; Ministry of Production and Labor: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mengistie, B.A.; Azene, Z.N.; Haile, T.T.; Abiy, S.A.; Abegaz, M.Y.; Taye, E.B.; Alemu, H.N.; Demeke, M.; Melese, M.; Tsega, N.T.; et al. Work-related burnout and its associated factors among midwives working at public hospitals in northwest Ethiopia: A multi-centered study. Front. Psychiatry 2023, 14, 1256063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ng, T.W.H.; Sorensen, K.L.; Yim, F.H.K. Does the Job Satisfaction—Job Performance Relationship Vary Across Cultures? J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2009, 40, 761–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Grum, B.; Kobal Grum, D. Concepts of social sustainability based on social infrastructure and quality of life. Facilities 2020, 38, 783–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Demeter, E.; Rad, D. Global life satisfaction and general antisocial behavior in young individuals: The mediating role of perceived loneliness in regard to social sustainability—A preliminary investigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Calculating the Cost of Work-Related Stress and Psychosocial Risks; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Bilbao, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Daniel, E.; Van Bergen, P. Teacher burnout during COVID-19: Associations with instructional self-efficacy but not emotion regulation. Teach. Teach. 2023, 29, 310–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, D.; Du, R. Psychological capital, mindfulness, and teacher burnout: Insights from Chinese EFL educators through structural equation modeling. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1351912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Madigan, D.J.; Kim, L.E.; Glandorf, H.L.; Kavanagh, O. Teacher burnout and physical health: A systematic review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2023, 119, 102173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Havet, N.; Plantier, M. The links between difficult working conditions and sickness absences in the case of French workers. Labour 2023, 37, 160–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gabriel, K.P.; Aguinis, H. How to prevent and combat employee burnout and create healthier workplaces during crises and beyond. Bus. Horiz. 2022, 65, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. National Institute of Safety and Health at Work (INSST). Annual Report on Work Accidents in Spain 2022; National Institute of Safety and Health at Work: Madrid, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  21. Llorca-Pellicer, M.; Gil-LaOrden, P.; Prado-Gascó, V.J.; Gil-Monte, P.R. The role of psychosocial risks in burnout, psychosomatic disorders, and job satisfaction: Linear models vs a QCA approach in non-university teachers. Psychol. Health 2023, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sainz, M.; Moreno-Bella, E.; Torres-Vega, L.C. Perceived unequal and unfair workplaces trigger lower job satisfaction and lower workers’ dignity via organizational dehumanization and workers’ self-objectification. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 53, 921–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cañavate, G.; Meneghel, I.; Salanova, M. The Influence of Psychosocial Factors according to Gender and Age in Hospital Care Workers. Span. J. Psychol. 2023, 26, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. John, A.; Bouillon-Minois, J.B.; Bagheri, R.; Pélissier, C.; Charbotel, B.; Llorca, P.M.; Zak, M.; Ugbolue, U.C.; Baker, J.S.; Dutheil, F. The influence of burnout on cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Psychiatry 2024, 15, 1326745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ng, Y.M.; Voo, P.; Maakip, I. Psychosocial factors, depression, and musculoskeletal disorders among teachers. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Membrive-Jiménez, M.J.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Suleiman-Martos, N.; Velando-Soriano, A.; Ariza, T.; de la Fuente-Solana, E.I.; Cañadas-De la Fuente, G.A. Relation between Burnout and Sleep Problems in Nurses: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2022, 10, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Erjavec, K.; Leskovic, L. Long-term healthcare professionals’ experiences of burnout and correlation between burnout and fatigue: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2023, 36, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Klopack, E.T.; Crimmins, E.M.; Cole, S.W.; Seeman, T.E.; Carroll, J.E. Social stressors associated with age-related T lymphocyte percentages in older US adults: Evidence from the US Health and Retirement Study. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2202780119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Gómez-Domínguez, V.; Gómez-Domínguez, T.; Navarro-Mateu, D.; Giménez-Espert, M.C. The Influence of COVID-19 and Psychosocial Risks on Burnout and Psychosomatic Health Problems in Non-University Teachers in Spain during the Peak of the Pandemic Regressions vs. fsQCA. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hernández-Rodríguez, V.; Maeso-González, E.; Gutiérrez-Bedmar, M.; García-Rodríguez, A. Psychosocial risk and job satisfaction in professional drivers. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 994358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. De Wijn, A.N.; van der Doef, M.P. Reducing Psychosocial Risk Factors and Improving Employee Well-Being in Emergency Departments: A Realist Evaluation. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 728390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lourenção, L.G.; Sodré, P.C.; Gazetta, C.E.; da Silva, A.G.; Castro, J.R.; Maniglia, J.V. Occupational stress and work engagement among primary healthcare physicians: A cross-sectional study. Sao Paulo Med. J. 2022, 140, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gil-Monte, P.R. Work Well-Being, Stress at Work and Occupational Health. In Manual of Work Psychology; Gil-Monte, P., Prado-Gascó, V.J., Eds.; Pyramid: Buffalo, MN, USA, 2021; pp. 243–285. [Google Scholar]
  34. Karasek, R. Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job design. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Karasek, R.; Theorell, T. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gil-Monte, P.R. (Coord.) Manual of Psychosociology Applied to Work and the Prevention of Occupational Risks; Pyramid: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Aguiar Fernández, F.X.; Lombardero Posada, X.M.; Méndez Fernández, A.B.; Murcia Álvarez, E.; González Fernández, A. Influence of role stress on Spanish social workers’ burnout and engagement: The moderating function of recovery and coping. Eur. J. Soc. Work 2023, 26, 705–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alblihed, M.; Alzghaibi, H.A. The Impact of Job Stress, Role Ambiguity and Work–Life Imbalance on Turnover Intention during COVID-19: A Case Study of Frontline Health Workers in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pennbrant, S.; Dåderman, A. Job demands, work engagement and job turnover intentions among registered nurses: Explained by work-family private life inference. Work 2021, 68, 1157–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Top, M.; Tekingunduz, S. The Effect of Organizational Justice and Trust on Job Stress in Hospital Organizations. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2018, 50, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Nickum, M.; Desrumaux, P. Burnout among lawyers: Effects of workload, latitude and mediation via engagement and over-engagement. Psychiatry Psychol. Law 2023, 30, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gómez-Domínguez, V.; Navarro-Mateu, D.; Gómez-Domínguez, T.; Giménez-Espert, M.C. How much do we care about teacher job insecurity during the pandemic? A bibliometric review. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1098013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Huang, Z.P.; Huang, F.; Liang, Q.; Liao, F.Z.; Tang, C.Z.; Luo, M.L.; Lu, S.L.; Lian, J.J.; Li, S.E.; Wei, S.Q.; et al. Socioeconomic factors, perceived stress, and social support effect on neonatal nurse burnout in China: A cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2023, 22, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pressley, T.; Marshall, D.T.; Moore, T. Understanding teacher burnout following COVID-19. Teach. Dev. 2024, 28, 553–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aguayo-Estremera, R.; Membrive-Jiménez, M.J.; Albendín-García, L.; Gómez-Urquiza, J.L.; Romero-Bejar, J.L.; de la Fuente-Solana, E.I.; Cañadas, G.R. Analysing Latent Burnout Profiles in a Sample of Spanish Nursing and Psychology Undergraduates. Healthcare 2024, 12, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Şahan, C.; Tur, M.B.; Demiral, Y. The Relationship Between Psychosocial Risks and Sleep Disorders in Health Care Workers. J. Turk. Sleep Med. 2020, 7, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Um, B.; Bardhoshi, G. Demands, resources, meaningful work, and burnout of counselors-in-training. Couns. Educ. Superv. 2022, 61, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Inggamara, A.; Pierewan, A.C.; Ayriza, Y. Work–life balance and social support: The influence on work engagement in the Sixth European Working Conditions Survey. J. Employ. Couns. 2022, 59, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, Y. Exploring the impact of workload, organizational support, and work engagement on teachers’ psychological well-being: A structural equation modeling approach. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1345740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, S.; Li, Y.; Lv, H.; Jiang, R.; Zhao, P.; Zheng, X.; Wang, L.; Li, J.; Mao, F. The prevalence and correlates of burnout among Chinese preschool teachers. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Méndez, I.; Martínez-Ramón, J.P.; Ruiz-Esteban, C.; García-Fernández, J.M. Latent profiles of burnout, self-esteem and depressive symptomatology among teachers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ozoemena, E.L.; Agbaje, O.S.; Ogundu, L.; Ononuju, A.H.; Umoke, P.C.I.; Iweama, C.N.; Kato, G.U.; Isabu, A.C.; Obute, A.J. Psychological distress, burnout, and coping strategies among Nigerian primary school teachers: A school-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Čecho, R.; Švihrová, V.; Čecho, D.; Novák, M.; Hudečková, H. Exposure to mental load and psychosocial risks in kindergarten teachers. Zdrav. Varst. 2019, 58, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Douelfiqar, I.; el Madhi, Y.; Soulaymani, A.; el Wahbi, B.; el Faylali, H. Evaluation of Psychosocial Risks Among High School Teachers in Morocco. Int. J. Eng. Pedag. 2023, 13, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wischlitzki, E.; Amler, N.; Hiller, J.; Drexler, H. Psychosocial Risk Management in the Teaching Profession: A Systematic Review. Saf. Health Work 2020, 11, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yousefi, M.; Abdullah, A.G.K. The impact of organizational stressors on job performance among academic staff. Int. J. Instr. 2019, 12, 561–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. ANPE. Annual Report of the Teacher’s Ombudsman for the 2022/2023 Academic Year; ANPE: Murcia, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bottiani, J.H.; Duran, C.A.K.; Pas, E.T.; Bradshaw, C.P. Teacher stress and burnout in urban middle schools: Associations with job demands, resources, and effective classroom practices. J. Sch. Psychol. 2019, 77, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and Well-Being; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II) Teachers and Heads of Educational Centers as Valued Professionals; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. López-Vílchez, J.J. Influence of Transformational Leadership on the Development of Psychological Harassment at Work (Mobbing). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  62. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). UIS.Stat Massive Data Download Service. 2023. Available online: https://uis.unesco.org/bdds (accessed on 30 May 2024).
  63. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  64. Barragan, L.F.G.Y. Violence in the school context in Guanajuato, Mexico. Int. J. Psychol. 2023, 58, 932–933. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang, H.J.; Lu, C.Q.; Siu, O.L. Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 100, 1249–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. García-Real, T.J.; Díaz-Román, T.M.; Mendiri, P. Vocal Problems and Burnout Syndrome in Nonuniversity Teachers in Galicia, Spain. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2024, 76, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Soto, A.J.C.; Escorza, Y.H. Adaptation of primary school teachers to distance classes and burnout. J. Psychol. Auton. Univ. State Mex. 2022, 11, 179–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Unda, S.; Hernández-Toledano, R.A.; García-Arreola, O.; Lozada, C.E. Psychosocial risk factors predictors of Burnout Syndrome (BTS) in high school teachers. Psychol. Inf. 2020, 119, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Prado-Gascó, V.; Gómez-Domínguez, M.T.; Soto-Rubio, A.; Díaz-Rodríguez, L.; Navarro-Mateu, D. Stay at home and teach: A comparative study of psychosocial risks between Spain and Mexico during the pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Giménez-Espert, M.C.; Prado-Gascó, V.; Soto-Rubio, A. Psychosocial Risks, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction of Nurses During COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 566896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Gil-Monte, P.R. The UNIPSICO Battery: Psychometric properties of scales that evaluate psychosocial demand factors. Arch. Occup. Risk Prev. 2016, 19, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Van der Elst, T.; de Witte, H.; de Cuyper, N. The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European countries. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2014, 23, 364–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gil-Monte, P.R.; CESQT. Questionnaire for the Evaluation of Burnout Syndrome due to Work. Manual (2nd ed.). TEA Editions. 2019. Available online: https://web.teaediciones.com/CESQT--CUESTIONARIO-PARA-LA-EVALUACION-DEL-SINDROME-DE-QUEMARSE-POR-EL-TRABAJO.aspx (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  74. Schaufeli, W.B.; Shimazu, A.; Hakanen, J.; Salanova, M.; de Witte, H. An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2019, 35, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Farndale, E.; Beijer, S.E.; Van Veldhoven, M.J.; Kelliher, C.; Hope-Hailey, V. Work and organisation engagement: Aligning research and practice. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2014, 1, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0; Released 2020; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  77. Bentler, P.M. EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual; Multivariate Software, Inc.: Encino, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 4. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. 2022. Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  79. Becker, J.M.; Cheah, J.H.; Gholamzadeh, R.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 35, 321–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chin, C.H.; Lo, M.C.; Razak, Z.; Pasbakhsh, P.; Mohamad, A.A. Resources confirmation for tourism destinations marketing efforts using PLS-MGA: The moderating impact of semi-rural and rural tourism destination. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Qian, T.Y.; Seifried, C. Virtual interactions and sports viewing on social live streaming platforms: The role of co-creation experiences, platform involvement, and follow status. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 162, 113884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A First on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  83. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. Int. Mark. Rev. 2016, 33, 405–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Paredes-Aguirre, M.I.; Barriga Medina, H.R.; Campoverde Aguirre, R.E.; Melo Vargas, E.R.; Armijos Yambay, M.B. Job Motivation, Burnout and Turnover Intention during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Are There Differences between Female and Male Workers? Healthcare 2022, 10, 1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nielsen, K.; Jørgensen, M.B.; Milczarek, M.; Munar, L. Healthy Workers, Thriving Companies: A Practical Guide to Well-Being at Work; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Bilbao, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bergh, L.; Leka, S.; Zwetsloot, G. Tailoring psychosocial risk assessment in the oil and gas industry by exploring specific and common psychosocial risks. Saf. Health Work 2018, 9, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Hammer, L.; Truxillo, D.; Bodner, T.; Pytlovany, A.; Richman, A. Exploration of the impact of organizational context on a workplace safety and health intervention. Work Stress 2019, 33, 192–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Llorca-Pellicer, M.; Soto-Rubio, A.; Gil-Monte, P.R. Development of Burnout Syndrome in non-university teachers: Influence of demand and resources variables. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 644025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Saloviita, T.; Pakarinen, E. Teacher burnout explained: Teacher-, student-, and organization-level variables. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 97, 103221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Torres-Hernández, E.F. Vocation and burnout in Mexican teachers. Educ. XX1 2023, 26, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ortiz, V.G.; Perilla-Toro, L.E.; Hermosa, A.M. Health risk for university professors associated with occupational psychosocial risk factors. Univ. Psychol. 2019, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jasiński, A.M.; Derbis, R. Work Stressors and Intention to Leave the Current Workplace and Profession: The Mediating Role of Negative Affect at Work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Pérez-Rodríguez, V.; Topa, G.; Beléndez, M. Organizational justice and work stress: The mediating role of negative, but not positive, emotions. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2019, 151, 109392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Brooks, S.K.; Dunn, R.; Amlôt, R.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. Social and occupational factors associated with psychological distress and disorder among disaster responders: A systematic review. BMC Psychol. 2016, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Inoue, A.; Eguchi, H.; Kachi, Y.; Tsutsumi, A. Perceived psychosocial safety climate, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese employees: A cross-sectional mediation analysis of job demands and job resources. J. Occup. Health 2023, 65, e12405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Mori, T.; Nagata, T.; Odagami, K.; Nagata, M.; Adi, N.P.; Mori, K.; Matsuyama, A. Workplace Social Support and Work Engagement Among Japanese Workers: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Study. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2023, 65, 514–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Wielers, R.; Hummel, L.; van der Meer, P. Career insecurity and burnout complaints of young Dutch workers. J. Educ. Work 2022, 35, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Masa, A.; Derzsi-Horváth, M.; Tobak, O.; Deutsch, K. Mental Health and Social Support of Teachers in Szeged, Hungary. Int. J. Instr. 2022, 15, 667–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Okojie, G.; Ismail, I.R.; Begum, H.; Ferdous Alam, A.S.A.; Sadik-Zada, E.R. The Mediating Role of Social Support on the Relationship between Employee Resilience and Employee Engagement. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06814 g001
Figure 1. Hypothesised relationships between antecedent and consequence variables.
Figure 1. Hypothesised relationships between antecedent and consequence variables.
Sustainability 16 06814 g001
Sustainability 16 06814 g002
Figure 2. Relationships obtained between the variables in Spain. Note: R2: variance explained by the variables. Only significant relationships are shown in the model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p > 0.001.
Figure 2. Relationships obtained between the variables in Spain. Note: R2: variance explained by the variables. Only significant relationships are shown in the model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p > 0.001.
Sustainability 16 06814 g002
Sustainability 16 06814 g003
Figure 3. Relationships obtained between the variables in Mexico. Note: R2: variance explained by the variables. Only significant relationships are shown in the model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p > 0.001.
Figure 3. Relationships obtained between the variables in Mexico. Note: R2: variance explained by the variables. Only significant relationships are shown in the model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p > 0.001.
Sustainability 16 06814 g003
Table 1. Descriptive analyses for Spanish teachers.
Table 1. Descriptive analyses for Spanish teachers.
VariableMeanSDMin.Max.Range
Role conflict1.090.860.004.000–4
Role clarity3.260.820.004.000–4
Interpersonal conflicts0.670.550.002.670–4
Inequity1.980.980.004.000–4
Work overload1.870.710.173.500–4
Job insecurity1.710.991.005.001–5
Social support2.780.920.004.000–4
Autonomy2.650.800.004.000–4
Burnout1.070.700.004.000–4
Health problems1.150.820.004.000–4
Engagement3.920.851.675.001–5
Note: SD: standard deviation; min: minimum; max: maximum.
Table 2. Descriptive analyses for Mexican teachers.
Table 2. Descriptive analyses for Mexican teachers.
VariableMeanSDMin.Max.Range
Role conflict0.880.670.003.800–4
Role clarity3.650.600.004.000–4
Interpersonal conflicts0.450.470.002.670–4
Inequity2.090.840.004.000–4
Work overload1.530.700.173.830–4
Job insecurity1.390.661.004.201–5
Social support2.540.950.004.000–4
Autonomy2.650.900.004.000–4
Burnout0.980.620.004.000–4
Health problems1.200.800.003.560–4
Engagement3.940.871.005.001–5
Note: SD: standard deviation; min: minimum; max: maximum.
Table 3. Comparison of means depending on the country.
Table 3. Comparison of means depending on the country.
VariableSpainMexico1−βt-Test
M (SD)M (SD) tp
Role conflict1.09 (0.86)0.88 (0.67)0.873.050.002
Role clarity3.26 (0.82)3.65 (0.60)0.99−5.490.000
Interpersonal conflicts0.67 (0.55)0.45 (0.47)0.925.300.000
Inequity1.98 (0.98)2.09 (0.84)0.63−1.170.245
Work overload1.87 (0.71)1.53 (0.70)0.994.850.000
Job insecurity1.71 (0.99)1.39 (0.66)0.963.110.002
Social support2.78 (0.92)2.54 (0.95)0.852.790.006
Autonomy2.65 (0.80)2.65 (0.90)0.500.440.658
Burnout1.07 (0.70)0.98 (0.62)0.661.100.274
Health problems1.15 (0.82)1.20 (0.80)0.53−0.690.490
Engagement3.92 (0.85)3.94 (0.87)0.510.260.799
Note: M: mean; SD: standard deviation; β = standardized regression coefficient; 1-β: statistical power; t: Student’s t test statistic; p: probability.
Table 4. Analysis of the moderating effect of country.
Table 4. Analysis of the moderating effect of country.
βSpainβMexicoΔβp
Social support ➔ Engagement0.190.190.000.999
Social support ➔ Health problems−0.070.03−0.090.392
Social support ➔ Burnout−0.16−0.07−0.100.322
Autonomy ➔ Engagement0.150.27−0.120.334
Autonomy ➔ Health problems−0.04−0.110.070.565
Autonomy ➔ Burnout−0.04−0.070.030.773
Role clarity ➔ Engagement0.040.11−0.070.558
Role clarity ➔ Health issues0.080.050.030.738
Role clarity ➔ Burnout−0.08−0.080.000.993
Role conflict ➔ Engagement0.050.030.020.890
Role conflict ➔ Health problems0.280.120.160.300
Role conflict ➔ Burnout−0.040.05−0.080.463
Interpersonal conflicts ➔ Engagement−0.160.02−0.180.094
Interpersonal conflicts ➔ Health problems0.110.040.070.551
Interpersonal conflicts ➔ Burnout0.290.150.140.152
Inequity ➔ Engagement−0.15−0.05−0.100.423
Inequity ➔ Health problems−0.020.16−0.180.119
Inequity ➔ Burnout0.220.070.160.156
Job insecurity ➔ Engagement−0.030.02−0.050.663
Job insecurity ➔ Health problems0.070.030.030.743
Job insecurity ➔ Burnout−0.010.16−0.170.044
Work overload ➔ Engagement−0.21−0.16−0.050.760
Work overload ➔ Health problems0.350.300.050.698
Work overload ➔ Burnout0.340.45−0.110.443
Note: β = standardized regression coefficient; Δβ: increment of β; p: permutation significance. The relationship on which the country has a moderating effect has been marked in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sanchis-Giménez, L.; Tamarit, A.; Prado-Gascó, V.J.; Sánchez-Pujalte, L.; Díaz-Rodríguez, L. Psychosocial Risks in Non-University Teachers: A Comparative Study between Spain and Mexico on Their Occupational Health. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166814

AMA Style

Sanchis-Giménez L, Tamarit A, Prado-Gascó VJ, Sánchez-Pujalte L, Díaz-Rodríguez L. Psychosocial Risks in Non-University Teachers: A Comparative Study between Spain and Mexico on Their Occupational Health. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166814

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sanchis-Giménez, Lucía, Alicia Tamarit, Vicente Javier Prado-Gascó, Laura Sánchez-Pujalte, and Luis Díaz-Rodríguez. 2024. "Psychosocial Risks in Non-University Teachers: A Comparative Study between Spain and Mexico on Their Occupational Health" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166814

APA Style

Sanchis-Giménez, L., Tamarit, A., Prado-Gascó, V. J., Sánchez-Pujalte, L., & Díaz-Rodríguez, L. (2024). Psychosocial Risks in Non-University Teachers: A Comparative Study between Spain and Mexico on Their Occupational Health. Sustainability, 16(16), 6814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166814

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