Multidimensional Aspects of Teachers’ Well-Being Imbalance During Remote Teaching

Abstract

Remote and hybrid teaching have become enduring features of European higher education, yet their implications for teachers’ well-being are often examined in fragmented ways. This study investigated a systemic imbalance across five interdependent domains—physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential well-being—among Lithuanian higher education teachers, interpreted through the Job Demands–Resources framework and Self-Determination Theory. Using a mixed-methods design, data were collected from 385 teachers via a structured online questionnaire that included demographic variables, 10-point imbalance ratings across the five domains, and open-ended questions. Quantitative analyses (descriptive statistics and correlational pattern exploration) were complemented by thematic analysis of teachers’ narratives. Results indicate a widespread multidimensional disruption: elevated stress and emotional exhaustion, substantial physical strain associated with inadequate home workspaces, cognitive overload linked to multi-platform teaching, reduced collegial connection, blurred work–life boundaries, and challenges to professional meaning. Strain was unevenly distributed, with higher vulnerability associated with gender and caregiving demands, early-career status, limited ergonomic conditions, and weak institutional support. The findings support a systemic interpretation in which intensified demands, reduced resources, and frustrated psychological needs jointly drive well-being imbalance. Sustainable remote/hybrid teaching therefore requires institution-level measures (workload regulation, training, ergonomic support, and boundary-setting policies) rather than reliance on individual coping alone.

1. Introduction

The rapid digitalization of higher education has consolidated remote and hybrid teaching as enduring instructional formats rather than temporary emergency solutions. While these modalities expand access and pedagogical flexibility, they also reconfigure academic work in ways that can generate sustained pressures on teachers’ well-being, particularly when digital delivery becomes structurally embedded without proportional adjustments in workload design, institutional support, and boundary governance.

Teacher well-being is increasingly conceptualized as a multidimensional and interdependent system, where physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual–existential domains mutually reinforce one another. In this view, strain is rarely confined to a single domain; instead, disruptions in one area can cascade across the system, shaping teachers’ capacity to cope, remain motivated, and sustain professional functioning over time. Multidimensional approaches are therefore critical for accurately diagnosing imbalance and for designing interventions that address root causes rather than isolated symptoms (Chen et al., 2024; Ong & Bonganciso, 2025).

To explain how remote teaching conditions can translate into multidimensional well-being imbalance, this study is anchored in two complementary frameworks. First, the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) theory posits that high job demands (e.g., workload intensification, time pressure, emotional labor) increase exhaustion risk, whereas job resources (e.g., autonomy, feedback, collegial support, adequate tools) buffer demands and promote engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Second, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) emphasizes that sustained well-being and motivation depend on the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness; when these needs are chronically frustrated, ill-being and disengagement become more likely (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Within digitally mediated teaching, demands may rise through continuous platform switching, expanded communication expectations, and intensified monitoring, while resources may erode if teachers experience limited control over delivery formats, insufficient training, weak technical support, or reduced opportunities for collegial connection (Rastegar & Rahimi, 2023; Stan, 2022).

Empirical evidence accumulated during and after the COVID-19 period indicates that remote and hybrid teaching can elevate stress, burnout risk, and broader well-being concerns, especially when implemented rapidly and maintained without systemic redesign. Reviews and large-scale survey studies report persistent pressures linked to workload expansion, role ambiguity, digital fatigue, and diminished recovery time (Katsarou et al., 2023; Kotowski et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022). These pressures are not exclusively psychological: the physical consequences of prolonged screen exposure and non-ergonomic home workstations can interact with emotional exhaustion and cognitive overload, while reduced relational contact can weaken social support and professional belonging—factors that are central to both JD–R and SDT pathways.

A further concern is that the burden of remote teaching is not evenly distributed. Studies point to gendered and caregiving-related inequalities, where intensified domestic responsibilities and blurred work–life boundaries amplify strain, particularly for women and those managing dependent care (Leo et al., 2022). Early-career and less secure staff may also be vulnerable due to weaker institutional positioning, fewer established coping routines, and reduced access to informal support networks. Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe similarly suggests meaningful variation in mental health and well-being outcomes during successive pandemic waves, reinforcing the need for contextualized analyses beyond frequently studied settings (Jakubowski & Sitko-Dominik, 2021). For higher education academics, qualitative research also indicates that boundary erosion and always-available communication norms can disrupt recovery patterns and increase perceived imbalance, highlighting governance issues that institutions must address rather than individualizing responsibility (Feery & Conway, 2023; Rauf et al., 2025; Sobral et al., 2025).

Despite growing scholarship on remote teaching, two gaps remain particularly relevant. First, much of the literature examines well-being through single indicators (often stress or burnout) rather than capturing how multiple domains interact and compound one another. Second, empirical evidence on higher education teachers in Central and Eastern Europe, including Lithuania, remains comparatively limited. Addressing these gaps requires a multidimensional lens combined with a design that links numeric indicators to lived-experience narratives. Based on this integrated JD–R/SDT framing, we expected remote teaching to be associated with interconnected and mutually reinforcing disruptions across physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential domains, rather than isolated difficulties.

Accordingly, the aim of this mixed-methods study is to examine multidimensional well-being imbalance among Lithuanian higher education teachers during remote teaching, by (a) mapping perceived well-being/imbalance across five interdependent domains—physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual–existential; (b) identifying the job demands and job resources most strongly associated with imbalance; and (c) clarifying the mechanisms teachers describe as shaping motivation, coping, and professional meaning. The study is guided by the following research questions: (i) How do higher education teachers perceive their well-being across five domains during remote teaching? (ii) Which job demands and job resources are most strongly associated with multidimensional well-being imbalance? (iii) How do teachers narrate the ways remote teaching conditions shape motivation, coping, and professional meaning? By integrating these strands, the study aims to support evidence-based institutional strategies—workload regulation, targeted training, ergonomic and technical support, and boundary-setting measures—consistent with sustainable digital education.

2. Theoretical Background and Conceptual Framework

Teacher well-being has been increasingly approached as a multidimensional construct that integrates interdependent facets of functioning rather than a single indicator of satisfaction or distress. In higher education, this multidimensional lens is particularly relevant because academic work combines sustained cognitive effort, emotional labour, social interaction, and identity-based meaning-making, all of which can be disrupted by rapid shifts in instructional modality. Recent conceptual and measurement work supports a multidimensional structure that includes physical, emotional/psychological, cognitive, social, and spiritual/existential dimensions, allowing a more systemic interpretation of how occupational contexts shape teachers’ functioning across domains (Chen et al., 2024; Ong & Bonganciso, 2025).

To interpret how remote teaching conditions may destabilize well-being, the JD–R theory is a robust organising framework. JD–R proposes that job demands (e.g., workload, time pressure, role ambiguity, emotional demands) deplete energy and increase strain, whereas job resources (e.g., autonomy, social support, feedback, training, adequate tools) buffer demands and promote motivation and engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Remote and hybrid teaching environments can intensify demands by expanding the scope of tasks (e.g., redesigning courses, managing multiple platforms, addressing student difficulties at a distance) while simultaneously weakening resources such as informal peer support, predictable schedules, and access to appropriate working conditions. Importantly, JD–R also highlights that demands and resources are not uniformly distributed; they interact with personal resources and contextual constraints, producing differentiated vulnerability profiles across groups and career stages.

SDT complements JD–R by clarifying why some remote-teaching conditions are experienced as energising, while others are experienced as draining. SDT argues that well-being is supported when work environments satisfy core psychological needs for autonomy (sense of volition), competence (sense of effectiveness), and relatedness (sense of connection) (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In remote teaching, autonomy can be undermined by intensified surveillance or rigid digital procedures, competence can be challenged by rapid technology demands and unstable platforms, and relatedness can be weakened through reduced collegial interaction. In this integrated JD–R/SDT view, remote teaching becomes a context where high demands and need frustration may co-occur, thereby increasing the likelihood of multidimensional well-being imbalance.

Across well-being domains, physical strain is often linked to the ergonomic and spatial realities of working from home. Teachers may face inadequate workstations, prolonged screen exposure, reduced movement, and musculoskeletal discomfort, turning the “home workspace” into a structural determinant of well-being rather than a private matter of personal preference. Emotional and psychological strain is frequently associated with uncertainty, intensified emotional labour, and sustained activation (e.g., stress, anxiety, exhaustion), especially when professional expectations remain stable while working conditions become unstable (Katsarou et al., 2023; Kotowski et al., 2022). Cognitive well-being may be challenged by the requirement to manage simultaneous information streams and continuous attention switching across platforms—conditions consistent with cognitive overload. Social well-being can deteriorate when informal peer interaction, collegial learning, and community belonging are reduced or become transactional in digitally mediated environments.

A critical demand in remote teaching concerns the management of boundaries between work and non-work life. Boundary theory suggests that when role boundaries become permeable, interruptions increase and recovery becomes more difficult, especially when individuals lack resources to enact preferred boundary-management strategies (Allen et al., 2014; Ashforth et al., 2000). Digitally mediated work can amplify boundary permeability through “always-on” communication norms, rapid response expectations, and asynchronous workload creep. Evidence from academia indicates that work-related technologies may simultaneously support flexibility and intensify work–family conflict, depending on the availability of resources and the feasibility of boundary enactment (Feery & Conway, 2023; Sobral et al., 2025). This dynamic is particularly relevant to remote teaching, where lesson preparation, student support, and administrative obligations can extend into evenings and weekends, with blurred boundaries acting as a cross-domain mechanism that links cognitive overload, emotional exhaustion, social disconnection, and physical fatigue.

Technostress is a further cross-cutting mechanism that connects remote teaching demands to multidimensional well-being disruption. Technostress refers to stress arising from technology use and technology-related organisational conditions, including overload, complexity, uncertainty, and the perceived compulsion to remain continuously connected (Tarafdar et al., 2007). In educational settings, technostress has been documented among teachers and students and is shaped not only by individual skills but also by institutional factors such as training quality, platform stability, digital policy coherence, and support responsiveness (Cazan et al., 2024; Pace et al., 2022). Within JD–R, technostress “creators” operate as demands, while “inhibitors” (e.g., training, technical support, participatory implementation) function as resources. In this sense, teachers’ digital competences and pedagogical-technology integration capacities can be conceptualised as personal and job resources that partially transform digital demands into manageable challenges rather than chronic stressors (Rastegar & Rahimi, 2023).

Finally, a multidimensional framework requires explicit attention to existential/spiritual well-being—understood as professional meaning, purpose, and value alignment. This domain becomes salient when teachers experience dissonance between pedagogical identity and technologically constrained teaching practices, or when work is reconfigured in ways that erode perceived professional significance. Scholarship on meaningful work underscores that meaning-related processes are not peripheral but foundational to sustained motivation and well-being, particularly under conditions of strain (Martela & Pessi, 2018; Steger et al., 2012). For teachers, existential strain may emerge when remote teaching reduces the felt quality of relationships, limits pedagogical creativity, or intensifies bureaucratic requirements, thereby challenging professional purpose. Cross-national and context-specific studies (including in Lithuania) further suggest that well-being outcomes are mediated by institutional communication, support infrastructures, and the perceived fairness and clarity of organisational expectations (Klanienė et al., 2025).

Synthesising these perspectives, the present study adopts an integrated theoretical position: remote teaching can generate a multidimensional well-being imbalance when job demands (work intensification, technostress, boundary permeability) co-occur with weakened job resources (support, training, autonomy, ergonomic conditions) and with frustration of SDT needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness). This framing supports the study’s focus on five interdependent well-being domains and motivates an analytic approach that examines not only overall disruption but also differential vulnerability linked to structural conditions, role demands, and resource access.

3. Materials and Methods

This section describes the methodological architecture of the study, detailing the overall procedure and mixed-methods design, the participant profile, the measurement strategy for multidimensional teacher well-being under remote/hybrid teaching conditions, and the analytic workflow used to generate and integrate quantitative and qualitative evidence. In line with methodological guidance for mixed-methods research, the section clarifies (i) how data collection was organised to ensure comparability across data strands, (ii) how quantitative modelling and qualitative thematic interpretation were conducted with transparency and rigour, and (iii) how integration was used to enhance explanatory power and reduce single-method bias (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013).

3.1. Procedure and Design

Drawing on the study’s conceptual foundations (multidimensional teacher well-being, the JD–R, and SDT), we adopted a mixed-methods research design integrating quantitative survey evidence with qualitative analysis of open-ended responses (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010; Venkatesh et al., 2013). Specifically, the study followed a convergent mixed-methods logic, whereby quantitative ratings and qualitative narratives were collected within the same online questionnaire, analysed using distinct procedures, and then integrated during interpretation to strengthen inference through triangulation and complementarity (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013).

The procedure comprised four stages: (i) questionnaire structuring (demographics/professional profile; domain-based imbalance ratings; open-ended prompts on demands, resources, and coping), (ii) online dissemination via institutional communication channels (e.g., faculty mailing lists and internal newsletters) and professional networks reaching higher education staff engaged in remote or hybrid teaching, (iii) electronic informed consent and voluntary participation prior to accessing the questionnaire, and (iv) integrated analysis combining statistical modelling with thematic interpretation of qualitative accounts. Participants were instructed to answer with reference to their most recent remote/hybrid teaching period. Because dissemination relied on open forwarding within institutions, an exact denominator and response rate could not be established; this is acknowledged as a limitation related to self-selection. The single-instrument mixed-method format ensured that quantitative scores and qualitative reflections referred to the same experiential frame, strengthening integration interpretability (Creswell & Clark, 2017).

This design was selected to capture, simultaneously, (a) the distribution and predictors of perceived well-being/imbalance across physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential domains and (b) teachers’ interpretive accounts of how remote/hybrid teaching conditions shape demands, resources, and coping processes, as suggested in recent syntheses on teacher well-being during the COVID-19 era (Katsarou et al., 2023) and in evidence linking digital transitions to stress and burnout processes (Rastegar & Rahimi, 2023; Tarafdar et al., 2007).

3.2. Participants

The study involved 385 teachers from a range of Lithuanian higher education institutions engaged in remote or hybrid teaching. The target sample size was established using conventional criteria (α = 0.05; power = 0.80) to ensure sensitivity to detect small-to-medium effects in group comparisons and regression models (Cohen, 1998). Participant demographic and professional characteristics are summarised in

Table 1. Participant characteristics (N = 385).

Characteristic	Category	N (%)
Gender	Women	216 (56%)
Gender	Men	169 (44%)
Marital status	Married/cohabiting	270 (70%)
School-aged children	None	216 (56%)
Academic position	Lecturer	285 (74%)
Academic position	Associate professor	58 (15%)
Academic position	Other	42 (11%)
Remote-teaching experience	<5 years	343 (89%)
Teaching experience	≤5 years	116 (30%)
Teaching experience	≥16 years	116 (30%)
Marital status	Single/divorced/widowed	115 (30%)
School-aged children	At least one	169 (44%)
Remote-teaching experience	≥5 years	42 (11%)
Teaching experience	6–15 years	153 (40%)

Note: Counts are rounded to the nearest whole number based on N = 385; percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

. The table reports the core descriptors used to contextualise the sample and to support subsequent subgroup comparisons and predictive modelling (e.g., gender, marital and parental status, academic position, teaching experience, and remote-teaching experience).

The sample comprised 56% women and 44% men; approximately 70% of respondents were married or cohabiting, and 56% reported no school-aged children. Regarding academic position, 74% were lecturers, 15% associate professors, and 11% other academic staff (e.g., assistants or senior specialists). Teaching experience was heterogeneous: 30% had ≤5 years of experience, 30% had ≥16 years, and the remainder were distributed between these categories. Importantly, 89% reported fewer than five years of experience with fully remote teaching, indicating that sustained online instruction was relatively novel for most participants—consistent with research highlighting heightened strain and adaptation demands during rapid shifts to remote education (Katsarou et al., 2023; Klanienė et al., 2025).

Inclusion criteria were: (i) current employment in Lithuanian higher education and (ii) active involvement in remote or hybrid teaching during the reference period. Participation was voluntary and uncompensated, and responses were analysed at the individual level.

3.3. Instruments

The questionnaire was designed to capture both the level and the meaning of teacher well-being under remote/hybrid teaching conditions. Accordingly, the instrument combined structured items—allowing standardised quantification of well-being across five domains—with open-ended prompts aimed at eliciting contextualised accounts of perceived demands, resources, and coping strategies. This dual structure is consistent with mixed-methods guidance recommending the integration of complementary measurement components to enhance construct coverage and explanatory depth (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013), and with qualitative research principles emphasising the value of participants’ narratives for interpreting experience-based phenomena in educational settings (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

Data were collected via a structured online questionnaire comprising three components:

(1) Sociodemographic and professional profile. Participants provided demographic and professional information (e.g., age, gender, marital status, number/age of children, academic rank, institutional type, total teaching experience, and years of remote teaching) to support subgroup analyses and modelling of contextual predictors.

(2) Multidimensional imbalance/strain indicators. Teachers rated the intensity of remote/hybrid-teaching-related imbalance/strain on a 10-point scale (1 = none/very low; 10 = very high) across five domains—physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential. Each domain was captured with a single item to maximise domain coverage within a single mixed-methods instrument and to minimise respondent burden, while remaining conceptually aligned with multidimensional teacher well-being frameworks (Chen et al., 2024). We acknowledge that single-item indicators do not provide the psychometric coverage of validated multi-item scales; accordingly, results are interpreted as domain-level intensity signals and triangulated with qualitative evidence.

To support content validity, item stems were derived from the integrated JD–R/SDT framing and from recent multidimensional teacher well-being measurement work, and were reviewed for clarity and domain fit prior to dissemination. Exact wording, anchors, and coding decisions are reported in

Table 2. Item wording, response anchors, and coding scheme for the six quantitative constructs (five well-being imbalance/strain domains and global perceived stress) assessed during remote/hybrid teaching on a 10-point scale (1 = none/very low; 10 = very high); higher scores indicate greater impairment/strain (worse outcomes) and no reverse-coding was applied.

Construct	Item Stem (as Presented to Respondents)	Anchors (1 … 10)	Coding for Analysis
Physical discomfort/strain	During remote/hybrid teaching, to what extent did you experience physical discomfort/strain?	1 = none/very low … 10 = very high	Higher = worse (no reverse-coding)
Emotional imbalance	During remote/hybrid teaching, to what extent did you experience emotional imbalance (e.g., stress, anxiety, exhaustion)?	1 = very low … 10 = very high	Higher = worse
Cognitive overload	During remote/hybrid teaching, to what extent did you experience cognitive overload (e.g., concentration difficulties, mental fatigue)?	1 = very low … 10 = very high	Higher = worse
Social disconnection	During remote/hybrid teaching, to what extent did you experience social disconnection from colleagues/students?	1 = very low … 10 = very high	Higher = worse
Existential strain	During remote/hybrid teaching, to what extent did you experience existential strain (e.g., reduced meaning/purpose, disappointment)?	1 = very low … 10 = very high	Higher = worse
Perceived stress	Overall, how would you rate your stress level during remote/hybrid teaching?	1 = very low … 10 = very high	Higher = worse

.

Item wording, anchors, and coding (as presented in the questionnaire).

Each domain item used the same response format (1–10) and was framed as the intensity of remote-teaching-related disruption in that domain. Thus, higher scores indicate greater imbalance/impairment (worse functioning) and lower scores indicate less imbalance (better functioning). In the quantitative analyses, all five domain scores were analysed in the same direction (higher = worse). Stress was measured separately as perceived stress intensity (1 = very low; 10 = very high). To address measurement transparency and ensure interpretability of score direction, Table 2 details the exact item stems presented to respondents, the 10-point response anchors, and the coding scheme used in the analyses. All six quantitative indicators were operationalised as intensity of imbalance/strain during remote/hybrid teaching, with higher scores consistently indicating greater impairment (i.e., “worse” outcomes) and no reverse-coding applied. This table also clarifies the conceptual distinction between domain-specific indicators (physical, emotional, cognitive, social, existential) and the global stress item used as a complementary marker of overall strain.

Physical well-being focused on fatigue and bodily strain associated with prolonged screen work and home-workstation constraints; emotional well-being addressed stress, anxiety, depressive affect, and exhaustion; cognitive well-being focused on attention, clarity, decision-making, and perceived effectiveness in online teaching; social well-being captured isolation versus collegial support and belonging; and existential well-being captured meaning, purpose, hope/disappointment, and sense of calling. The existential domain was included to capture meaning-related appraisals that can be salient under disruption and prolonged uncertainty, complementing demand/resource and needs-based interpretations of work functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

(3) Open-ended prompts on demands, resources, and coping. Open-ended items invited participants to describe main remote-teaching challenges (physical, emotional, cognitive, social, technological, and family-related), coping strategies, and protective factors. Prompts were designed to elicit neutral experiential accounts consistent with the JD–R and SDT framing (i.e., demands/resources and autonomy/competence/relatedness). The open-ended component was included to capture explanatory mechanisms not fully observable through numeric ratings (e.g., boundary erosion, perceived resource loss, or shifts in professional meaning), increasing analytical depth and contextual validity (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

3.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis proceeded in three coordinated stages—quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, and mixed-methods integration—to ensure that (i) the distribution and statistical predictors of multidimensional well-being were estimated with appropriate inferential rigour, (ii) teachers’ narrative accounts were systematically interpreted to identify recurring demand–resource and meaning-related patterns, and (iii) both strands were brought together to generate coherent, triangulated explanations of well-being under remote/hybrid teaching conditions (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013). This three-part workflow is consistent with mixed-methods recommendations that emphasise methodological complementarity, transparency of analytic steps, and explicit integration procedures (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013).

Quantitative analysis. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS (version 27). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies) summarised participant characteristics and domain imbalance/strain indicators. Pearson correlations were used to explore associations between domain indicators and key variables (e.g., gender, parental status, teaching experience, and remote-teaching experience). Where group patterns were considered informative, subgroup means were compared descriptively to contextualise the distribution of strain; the manuscript avoids unsupported inferential claims and focuses on effect direction and practical interpretability consistent with the study’s exploratory purpose and single-item indicators. Key quantitative summaries used for triangulation are consolidated in Table 1, Table 2 and

Table 3. Joint display linking quantitative patterns to qualitative themes (convergent integration).

Domain	Key Quantitative Pattern (Summary)	Qualitative Theme(s)	Illustrative Mechanism (JD–R/SDT Lens)
Physical discomfort/strain	Higher discomfort among teachers without dedicated/ergonomic home workspace.	Non-ergonomic workstation; prolonged screen exposure; fatigue.	High demands + low material resources → energy depletion; spillover to emotional/cognitive strain.
Emotional imbalance	High prevalence of stress/exhaustion; higher burden among women and caregivers.	Emotional exhaustion; anxiety; role conflict.	Need frustration (competence/autonomy) + chronic demands → exhaustion.
Cognitive overload	Frequent concentration difficulties; platform switching and multitasking.	Fragmented workday; multi-platform teaching; continuous monitoring.	Cognitive demands/technostress → overload; reduced competence.
Social disconnection	Reduced collegial support and informal interaction; isolation linked to lower coping.	Loss of collegial contact; weakened belonging.	Reduced social resources and relatedness frustration → lower resilience.
Existential strain	Reports of reduced meaning/purpose when teaching becomes platform-mediated.	Erosion of professional meaning; identity tension.	Meaning-making threatened; autonomy/relatedness deficits → existential strain.

.

To maintain alignment between analytic claims and the evidence reported in the main manuscript, multivariable modelling is treated as an analytic extension rather than a primary basis for interpretation in this article (Zhang et al., 2022). Accordingly, the Results emphasize descriptive domain patterns and their convergence with qualitative themes. (Field, 2018; Hair & Sabol, 2025; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2018).

Qualitative analysis. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s procedures (Braun & Clarke, 2006), with an explicitly documented coding framework and an audit trail of analytic decisions. Open-ended responses addressed three areas: (i) main remote/hybrid teaching demands and challenges, (ii) resources and forms of support perceived as helpful, and (iii) coping strategies and meaning-related reflections. Responses were screened for substantive content and all usable responses were included in analysis. Two researchers familiarised themselves with the dataset, generated initial codes, iteratively refined a shared codebook, and developed themes capturing recurring experiences (e.g., physical strain, emotional depletion, cognitive overload, reduced collegial connection, boundary erosion, and shifts in professional meaning). Theme development was supported by reflexive memoing and regular analytic meetings to review theme boundaries, ensure internal coherence, and document how interpretations were reached. Open-ended questions were presented within the same instrument; responses were voluntary and varied from brief statements to multi-sentence paragraphs. All submitted substantive responses were included in the thematic analysis.

Integration. Themes were compared with quantitative patterns to strengthen integrative inference. Integration was conducted using (i) structured side-by-side comparison and (ii) a joint display (Table 3) that maps domain-level quantitative patterns and salient predictors to corresponding qualitative themes and JD–R/SDT mechanisms. This makes the convergent logic explicit, strengthens triangulation, and reduces single-method bias in the interpretation of results (Creswell & Clark, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2013).

3.5. Ethical Considerations

Ethical procedures followed international standards and Lithuanian research regulations. Prior to data collection, the study protocol was reviewed through the institution’s internal research governance process and was classified as exempt/minimal-risk because it involved an anonymous, voluntary online questionnaire with no direct identifiers and no interventions. Accordingly, formal ethics committee review was not required under the applicable institutional policy for anonymised survey research. All procedures complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EUR, 2016; World Medical Association, 2013). Participation was voluntary and based on electronic informed consent obtained before survey initiation; participants were informed about study aims, procedures, expected time commitment, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequences. Data minimisation was applied (collection limited to variables needed for the research questions; no names, email addresses, or IP identifiers stored), and analyses/reporting were performed in aggregated form. Data were stored on password-protected systems with access restricted to the research team and retained in accordance with institutional data management rules. Because some questions addressed potentially sensitive experiences (e.g., exhaustion, anxiety, work–family conflict), the questionnaire was designed to elicit general perceptions rather than detailed personal disclosures, and participants were signposted to available support resources.

4. Results: Multidimensional Well-Being Imbalance During Remote Teaching

Results are presented in three subsections aligned with the research questions. Quantitative indicators (domain ratings, stress distribution, and group differences) are interpreted alongside qualitative accounts from open-ended responses to provide a coherent mixed-methods synthesis.

4.1. Perceived Well-Being Across Domains (RQ1)

Stress levels varied substantially across the sample. Approximately 26% of respondents reported very low stress (1/10), while 15% rated stress at 7/10, with an overall mean of 5.2 (SD = 2.1). This dispersion suggests that remote teaching amplified differences in coping capacity and resource availability rather than producing a uniform “moderate” response. Teachers reporting lower stress tended to frame remote teaching as feasible and, in some cases, professionally stimulating due to flexibility and novel pedagogical opportunities, whereas those reporting higher stress described the experience as exhausting and difficult to sustain.

Clear differences emerged by gender and parental status. Women reported higher stress (M = 5.8) than men (M = 4.5), and teachers with children reported higher stress (M = 6.1) than those without children (M = 4.8). Qualitative responses attributed these patterns not only to workload and technological demands, but also to intensified role conflict and caregiving responsibilities—patterns that are consistent with evidence on gendered work–family impacts during pandemic-related educational disruptions (Leo et al., 2022). Teaching experience also differentiated stress: early-career teachers (≤5 years) reported the highest stress (M = 5.9), while the most experienced group (≥16 years) reported the lowest (M = 4.7). Early-career respondents more frequently described insecurity regarding online teaching performance and heightened evaluative concerns, whereas more experienced teachers reported that established routines and professional confidence helped them accommodate new demands despite initial technological uncertainty.

Physical discomfort/strain was among the most affected domains. Physical discomfort/strain was measured as the intensity of physical discomfort during remote teaching (1 = none/very low; 10 = very high). Nearly half of respondents (47%) reported bodily symptoms associated with remote teaching, including muscle/joint pain, eye strain, headaches, and persistent fatigue. These issues were closely tied to home working conditions: 38% reported lacking a dedicated workspace, 29% reported inadequate ergonomic arrangements, and 33% reported extended screen exposure without sufficient breaks. Notably, teachers with a separate home office reported lower physical discomfort (M = 3.2/10) than those working in shared or improvised spaces (M = 6.4/10), indicating a meaningful workspace-related gradient in physical strain. Qualitative accounts further indicated that physical strain was not perceived as a minor inconvenience; it was frequently linked to reduced patience, worsened mood, and diminished concentration, reinforcing the systemic nature of imbalance across domains.

Emotional and psychological well-being showed the sharpest decline. Most teachers (92.2%) reported increased stress, with 66.2% reporting stronger stress symptoms. In addition, 38.2% reported increased irritability, 37.7% increased anxiety, and 32.8% more depressive feelings. These patterns are consistent with international evidence documenting heightened psychological strain among teachers during remote teaching periods (Katsarou et al., 2023; Kotowski et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022). A related and notable result concerned professional self-belief: 54% reported reduced confidence in their ability to teach effectively online. This loss of perceived competence was strongly associated with emotional exhaustion: respondents reporting lower competence also reported markedly higher exhaustion (M = 7.1) compared with those reporting higher competence (M = 3.2). Gendered differences were again evident in emotional exhaustion, with women reporting higher levels (M = 6.8) than men (M = 5.2), and mothers reporting the highest levels (M = 7.4). Qualitative responses frequently linked these experiences to continuous role overlap and persistent feelings of inadequacy in meeting both professional and family expectations, highlighting the interaction between occupational demands and domestic pressures.

Social well-being also deteriorated substantially. Over half of respondents (58%) reported little or no collegial support during remote teaching, and 71% reported that informal workplace interactions largely disappeared. Respondents frequently emphasised the loss of spontaneous, low-threshold contact (e.g., brief exchanges and post-class reflections) as consequential for emotional regulation, professional identity, and belonging. Quantitative comparisons indicated a protective role of social resources: teachers who maintained contact with colleagues through virtual meetings, messaging, or professional communities reported higher well-being (M = 5.8) than those who felt isolated (M = 3.4). Family relationships similarly functioned as a protective or risk factor. Teachers reporting supportive family relationships reported higher well-being (M = 6.2) than those reporting conflict or tension at home (M = 3.8). Support was described in practical terms (shared childcare and household responsibilities) and emotional terms (encouragement and understanding), whereas conflict was associated with intensified feelings of being pulled between incompatible demands.

Cognitive well-being was also heavily impacted. Sixty-three percent of respondents reported difficulties with concentration, sustained focus, and decision-making. Qualitative accounts described highly fragmented workdays dominated by frequent platform switching and continuous monitoring of multiple communication channels. On average, respondents reported spending 6.3 h per week solely on managing digital platforms and tools, in addition to teaching and preparation. Furthermore, 71% reported having to substantially restructure courses for online delivery, often under time pressure and with limited guidance. In line with an demands–resources perspective, respondents frequently framed cognitive overload as arising from escalating digital and administrative requirements without commensurate increases in time, training, or clarity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

4.2. Job Demands and Job Resources Associated with Imbalance (RQ2)

Work–life boundary disruption was pronounced. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) reported that they almost never fully disconnected from work. Only 20% reported achieving a good work–life balance at least sometimes, whereas 37% reported almost never achieving it. More than half (52%) reported that remote teaching harmed family life, and 11% reported a very severe impact. Qualitative responses indicated that asynchronous work and continuous messaging extended the working day into evenings and weekends and reduced opportunities for recovery. Gendered differences were again apparent: 58% of women with children reported increased work–family conflict compared with 42% of men, reinforcing the intersection between boundary permeability and caregiving roles.

4.3. Mechanisms Shaping Motivation, Coping, and Professional Meaning (RQ3)

Finally, institutional and administrative support was frequently characterised as insufficient. Most respondents (73%) reported receiving no systematic training for remote teaching, and only 31% considered institutional technical support adequate. Qualitative responses commonly described unclear or shifting expectations, inconsistent communication, and limited recognition of expanded workload. These perceptions were not limited to operational inconvenience; for some teachers, diminished support was associated with reduced trust in leadership and weakened professional commitment. From a JD–R standpoint, this configuration—rising demands alongside eroding resources—represents a structural risk for sustained strain, burnout, and potential attrition (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). References to blocked competence and reduced effectiveness similarly align with the SDT proposition that need frustration can contribute to exhaustion and disengagement (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Teachers’ narratives emphasised how remote teaching conditions translated into motivational and coping challenges through need frustration and boundary strain. Accounts highlighted diminished competence when technologies were unstable or when training was unavailable, reduced relatedness due to limited informal collegial exchange, and constrained autonomy under intensified monitoring and continuous availability expectations. Across narratives, these mechanisms were linked to shifts in professional meaning, with some teachers describing erosion of purpose and pedagogical identity in highly platform-mediated teaching.

Overall, the results indicate that remote teaching in Lithuanian higher education was associated with an interconnected, multidimensional pattern of disruption across physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential domains. This pattern was shaped by the co-occurrence of intensified demands (workload expansion, technostress, and boundary permeability) and weakened resources (training, ergonomic conditions, and collegial/institutional support), with qualitative accounts illustrating how these conditions undermined motivation, coping capacity, and professional meaning.

To make the convergent mixed-methods logic explicit, we integrated the quantitative and qualitative strands using a joint display. Table 3 maps the domain-level quantitative patterns (including subgroup differences and salient predictors) onto the corresponding qualitative themes and illustrative mechanisms, thereby clarifying where the two strands converge, complement each other, or diverge. This integrated presentation strengthens the interpretability of the findings and the credibility of the triangulation claims by showing how measured imbalance intensities relate to teachers’ narrated experiences across domains.

5. Discussion: Structural Drivers of Multidimensional Teacher Well-Being in Remote and Hybrid Teaching

This study examined how remote and hybrid teaching reshaped the balance of teachers’ well-being in Lithuanian higher education and how these patterns align with broader European and international evidence. The findings indicate that online teaching should not be understood as an additional, isolated stressor layered onto otherwise stable academic work. Rather, it alters the way multiple well-being domains interact—physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential—thereby producing a systemic imbalance that can deepen over time.

Overall, the results are consistent with multidimensional conceptualisations of teacher well-being and with established explanatory frameworks, notably the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model and Self-Determination Theory (SDT). In JD–R terms, remote teaching substantially intensified job demands (workload, cognitive complexity, emotional labour, and technology-related strain) while simultaneously weakening or removing key resources (ergonomic conditions, stable routines, collegial interaction, and reliable institutional support). This combination is widely recognised as a pathway to stress, exhaustion, and burnout when sustained. The Lithuanian patterns therefore align with evidence that high demands coupled with limited resources predict deteriorations in well-being and elevated burnout risk (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Kotowski et al., 2022; Rastegar & Rahimi, 2023; Stan, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022).

From an SDT perspective, the study further suggests that remote teaching environments can systematically frustrate the psychological needs that underpin motivation and professional functioning—competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Teachers’ reduced confidence in online teaching effectiveness, together with experiences of limited control over pedagogical processes and weaker connection with students and colleagues, reflects need thwarting mechanisms that are empirically linked to lower well-being and reduced intention to continue online teaching (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ma et al., 2022).

A key interpretive insight is that remote teaching operated as a “risk amplifier” rather than a uniform stressor. Although mean stress levels were moderate, dispersion was substantial: teachers with fewer resources and greater role strain were disproportionately affected. This is consistent with the JD–R proposition that vulnerability increases when demands and resources are unevenly distributed across social and occupational groups. In Lithuania, the highest burden clustered among those experiencing concurrent disadvantages—especially women with caregiving responsibilities, early-career staff without established routines, and teachers lacking adequate workspaces and institutional support (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Klanienė et al., 2025; Leo et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Rauf et al., 2025).

The evidence also supports the central claim of multidimensional well-being models: impairments in one domain readily spill into others. Physical strain—commonly treated as peripheral in higher education well-being debates—emerged as a foundational stressor. Teachers reporting prolonged screen time and inadequate home workstations experienced more musculoskeletal discomfort, headaches, fatigue, and eye strain, which in turn undermined emotional regulation and cognitive functioning. This reinforces the interpretation that physical conditions are not merely “comfort” issues but upstream determinants that influence attention, patience, and resilience, thereby accelerating emotional exhaustion and cognitive overload (Cuadra, 2025; Klanienė et al., 2025; Kotowski et al., 2022).

Emotional and psychological well-being, however, represented the most visible manifestation of the imbalance. The high prevalence of stress, anxiety-related experiences, irritability, and depressive feelings corresponds to broader international findings that teaching professionals faced substantial mental health impacts during extensive remote instruction phases. Importantly, in this study, emotional exhaustion was closely tied to diminished perceived teaching effectiveness, reinforcing SDT-informed interpretations: when teachers experience repeated disruptions to competence, the resulting motivational depletion can accelerate exhaustion and disengagement (Audet et al., 2025; Ma et al., 2022; Martínez-Líbano & Yeomans, 2023).

The gendered distribution of strain further indicates that well-being imbalance is structured by social conditions rather than by individual coping alone. Women—particularly mothers—showed higher stress and emotional exhaustion, reflecting the interaction of professional expectations with unequal caregiving loads and intensified work–family conflict under home-based teaching conditions. This pattern is consistently reported across contexts and reinforces the need to treat remote teaching well-being as a labour- and equity-sensitive institutional issue, not merely a personal resilience matter (Leo et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Rauf et al., 2025).

Cognitively, remote teaching increased the frequency of rapid task-switching, monitoring multiple channels, troubleshooting platforms, and responding to continuous digital communications. This “cognitive crowding” reduces capacity for deeper pedagogical work such as reflective planning, creative design, and meaningful assessment development. In turn, cognitive overload can decrease perceived competence and increase emotional exhaustion, forming a reinforcing cycle where reduced efficacy further depletes the cognitive resources needed to teach effectively (Martínez-Líbano & Yeomans, 2023; Zhang et al., 2022).

Social well-being also deteriorated, particularly through reduced informal collegial contact and weakened professional community. International research similarly shows that isolation and blurred boundaries reduce coping capacity and diminish a key job resource: supportive professional relationships. In Lithuanian higher education, the erosion of everyday peer interaction plausibly contributed to both emotional strain and professional identity disruption, as teachers lost the relational spaces in which norms, teaching meaning, and shared problem-solving are maintained (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Jakubowski & Sitko-Dominik, 2021; Rauf et al., 2025).

Work–life boundary erosion was a major mechanism linking demands across domains. When the spatial and temporal separation between work and home collapses, recovery time decreases, sleep and physical activity are often disrupted, and “always-on” communication becomes normalised. This directly raises stress and indirectly worsens physical symptoms and cognitive fatigue. These dynamics are widely reported among academics and teachers in remote-work contexts and were strongly reflected in the Lithuanian data (Klanienė et al., 2025; Kotowski et al., 2022; Rauf et al., 2025).

Technostress and digital fatigue add nuance to this interpretation. Evidence suggests that technology-related teaching knowledge may initially function as a demand (through uncertainty and additional learning burden) but can later become a resource as competence increases. The Lithuanian narratives align with this transformation: some teachers reported adaptation over time, especially where digital skills, supportive home conditions, and informal peer exchange were available. Nonetheless, reduced technical difficulty does not automatically remove digital fatigue when workload, communication expectations, and boundary pressures remain high (Katsarou et al., 2023; Rastegar & Rahimi, 2023; Stan, 2022).

Existential well-being—often under-measured—emerged as an important long-term risk. As teaching becomes increasingly mediated by screens, platforms, and administratively driven routines, teachers may experience reduced professional meaning, weakened identification with their role, and uncertainty about the human value of their work. This study’s results suggest that existential concerns are not separate from the other domains; rather, they become more likely when competence, autonomy, and relatedness are repeatedly undermined, and when social and organisational recognition is low (Audet et al., 2025; Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The findings also clarify that personal resources matter but are insufficient when structural supports are weak. Emotional intelligence, metacognitive strategies, and coping skills can buffer stress, but they cannot substitute for institutional actions that reduce chronic overload and restore resources. Where organisational support is limited, burnout risk and disengagement increase; conversely, clear expectations, training, technical infrastructure, and collegial spaces strengthen coping capacity and protect well-being. This reinforces policy-oriented conclusions from the teacher well-being literature that effective solutions must be designed at organisational and system levels, not delegated primarily to individuals (Geraci et al., 2023; Iacolino et al., 2023; Katsarou et al., 2023; Kotowski et al., 2022; Shimony et al., 2022).

Taken together, the Lithuanian findings support a broader European interpretation: remote and hybrid teaching become sustainable only when teachers are treated as whole professionals whose well-being depends on material working conditions, social support, workload governance, and meaning-making opportunities—not only on digital tools or individual adaptation. The discussion therefore reinforces three central implications: (i) well-being in remote teaching is systemic and multidimensional, with strong cross-domain spillovers; (ii) the burden is shaped by social and organisational inequalities (gender, caregiving, workspace quality, and institutional support); and (iii) sustainable solutions must be equally multidimensional—combining ergonomics, workload regulation, training, boundary-setting norms, collegial infrastructures, and psychosocial support.

This study demonstrates that remote teaching is associated with a systemic and multidimensional imbalance in higher education teachers’ well-being, simultaneously affecting physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and existential domains. The evidence indicates that these disruptions should not be interpreted as isolated outcomes (e.g., “more stress” or “more screen time”), nor as the consequence of individual shortcomings. Instead, the patterns observed are best explained through structural and organisational mechanisms that reconfigure academic work under digitally mediated conditions. In particular, remote teaching amplified job demands (e.g., workload expansion, continuous communication, cognitive multitasking, and technology-related pressures) while diminishing key professional resources (e.g., stable routines, ergonomic work conditions, collegial interaction, and effective institutional support). This configuration corresponds to well-established pathways to strain and exhaustion described in the Job Demands–Resources perspective (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). At the same time, the results suggest that remote teaching can frustrate psychological needs central to sustainable motivation—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—thereby reinforcing emotional exhaustion and undermining professional meaning, consistent with Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ma et al., 2022).

The study further shows that vulnerability to well-being imbalance is not evenly distributed. Higher stress and exhaustion clustered particularly among women with caregiving responsibilities, early-career teachers, and those lacking dedicated workspaces, adequate ergonomics, or strong institutional support. These findings strengthen the interpretation that remote teaching magnifies pre-existing inequalities and role conflicts, especially where unpaid domestic labour and caregiving demands intersect with intensified professional expectations. Such gendered and caregiving-related disparities have also been reported in wider research on pandemic-related and post-pandemic remote work conditions in education and academia (Leo et al., 2022; Rauf et al., 2025). The Lithuanian case therefore contributes context-specific evidence to a broader international picture: when digital teaching is institutionalised without compensatory redesign of workload, resources, and support, it creates predictable risk conditions for chronic strain, burnout, and disengagement (Katsarou et al., 2023; Kotowski et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022).

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the study underscores that sustaining remote and hybrid teaching requires a systemic approach to teachers’ well-being that recognises cross-domain interdependence and structural determinants.

A central implication is that improving teacher well-being in digital and hybrid education cannot be addressed adequately through individual-level coping recommendations alone. While personal resources and skills (e.g., digital competence, self-regulation, emotional intelligence) may buffer strain, they cannot compensate for structurally embedded overload, inadequate infrastructure, or unclear organisational expectations. Sustainable remote and hybrid teaching therefore requires coordinated institutional action that targets both demands and resources. Key priorities include: (i) explicit workload governance (recognising preparation, assessment, and online communication time); (ii) reliable and user-centred digital infrastructure, including technical support responsiveness; (iii) structured professional development in digital pedagogy that goes beyond tool use to include assessment design, student engagement, and inclusive online practices; (iv) ergonomic support and clear guidance on minimum home-workstation standards; and (v) policies that protect recovery time and reduce boundary erosion, including norms on response times and availability. In parallel, strengthening collegial connection through formal and informal communities of practice can restore an essential resource for sensemaking, shared problem-solving, and professional belonging. These directions align with evidence-based conclusions from teacher well-being research that organisational support and resource design are decisive for preventing burnout under high-demand conditions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Katsarou et al., 2023).

Teacher well-being should thus be treated as a core institutional responsibility and a key dimension of educational quality in the digital era. When well-being deteriorates, the consequences extend beyond the individual teacher: sustained exhaustion and reduced meaning can impair pedagogical creativity, responsiveness to students, and the continuity of teaching teams, with downstream risks for student learning and institutional effectiveness. Accordingly, policies aiming to expand digital education should incorporate well-being impact assessment as part of routine quality assurance—integrating workload indicators, support adequacy, and teachers’ multidimensional well-being as monitored outcomes.

Finally, this study has implications for future research. Multidimensional frameworks should be further operationalised and validated across higher education contexts, including longitudinal designs that track whether and how well-being stabilises as teachers gain experience and institutions refine support. Research should also examine how specific organisational interventions—workload regulation, boundary-setting policies, ergonomic support, and structured collegial practices—alter demand–resource balance and psychological need satisfaction over time. Such evidence would support the development of sustainable digital education models that maintain flexibility and innovation while protecting teachers’ health, motivation, and professional purpose.