Teacher-Facing Generative AI and Workplace Mental Health in Higher Education: Perceived Demands and Resources

Measure	Response Distribution, n (%)
Prior AI awareness	High: 52 (34.7%) Moderate: 69 (46.0%) Low/None: 29 (19.3%)
Experience with Twee	Regular: 12 (8.0%) Occasional: 38 (25.3%) Tried once: 37 (24.7%) Never/Unfamiliar: 63 (42.0%)
AI-tool use for learning/teaching	Weekly or more: 59 (39.3%) Monthly: 42 (28.0%) Rarely: 29 (19.3%) Never: 20 (13.3%)
Usefulness for saving preparation time	Very: 58 (38.7%) Somewhat: 58 (38.7%) Slightly: 22 (14.7%) Not useful: 12 (8.0%)
Usefulness for task variety/differentiation	Very: 66 (44.0%) Somewhat: 58 (38.7%) Slightly: 18 (12.0%) Not useful: 8 (5.3%)
Main implementation constraint	Access: 41 (27.3%) Quality assurance: 33 (22.0%) Curriculum alignment: 30 (20.0%) Training/Time: 30 (20.0%) Privacy: 16 (10.7%)
Intention next semester	Definitely: 48 (32.0%) Probably: 64 (42.7%) Unsure: 29 (19.3%) Probably not: 9 (6.0%)

[i] Note. “Access” refers to devices or stable internet. Non-user and student usefulness ratings reflect anticipated benefits; percentages may not total 100.0 because of rounding.

Table 2

Exploratory Teacher and Student/Student-Tutor Comparisons

Outcome	Teachers, n/N (%)	Students/Student-Tutors, n/N (%)	OR (95% Exact CI)	p	Adjust ed p
Any prior Twee use	42/56 (75.0)	45/94 (47.9)	3.27 (1.50–7.32)	.001	.005
“Very useful” for time saving	30/56 (53.6)	28/94 (29.8)	2.72 (1.29–5.72)	.005	.016
“Very useful” for task variety	32/56 (57.1)	34/94 (36.2)	2.35 (1.13–4.89)	.017	.034
Access as main constraint	10/56 (17.9)	31/94 (33.0)	0.44 (0.18–1.05)	.058	.058

[i] Note. Two-sided Fisher exact tests. OR = odds ratio for teachers relative to students/student-tutors; CI = conditional exact confidence interval; adjusted p = Holm-adjusted p value across four comparisons. Analyses were reconstructed from reported aggregate cell counts.

Table 3

Perceived Work Conditions and Implications for Mental Health Promotion

Empirical Observation	Psychological Interpretation	Proposed Organizational Response	Future Assessment
Time-saving ratings; N7 on individual support	Possible relief from time pressure	Evaluate how saved time is used	Net task time; recovery; well-being
Curriculum fit; N2 and N10 on appropriate use	Discretion and autonomy	Preserve teacher choice and final review	Perceived autonomy
Training/time constraint; N6 on learning	Mastery and competence	Allocate practice time and feedback	Need satisfaction; AI self-efficacy
N8 on mentoring; N11 on human connection	Relatedness and work meaning	Protect human feedback and peer contact	Relatedness; meaningful work
Access constraint; N8 on infrastructure	Resources enabling participation	Provide access and equivalent alternatives	Access failures; support

[i] Note. Interpretations and organizational responses are proposals for evaluation, not measured mental-health effects. Constraint percentages refer to the mixed sample. No psychological-needs, mediation, or psychosocial-risk model was tested.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56508/mhgcj.v9i1.374 | Journal eISSN: 2612-2138

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 229 - 241

Submitted on: Jun 17, 2026

Accepted on: Oct 1, 2026

Published on: Oct 12, 2026

Published by: International Platform on Mental Health

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: Volume open

Keywords:

Mental Health,

Workplace Mental Health,

Mental Health Promotion,

Generative Artificial Intelligence,

Psychosocial Working Conditions,

Teacher Well-Being,

Higher Education,

Mixed Methods

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Psychiatry, psychotherapy,

Social sciences,

Psychology,

Psychology, other

© 2026 Liliya Batyuk, Volodymyr Borysov, Iryna Hlazkova, Yana Romantsova, Olena Karasova, Oksana Dubrova, Olena Ronzhes, published by International Platform on Mental Health
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 9 (2026): Issue 1 (January 2026)