Workplace psychological stress continues to be a pervasive problem for many. When employees talk about stress, they are usually alluding to negative “distress,” which is an unwanted and possibly damaging burden, rather than positive “eustress,” a motivator for growth, development, and change [1,2]. Psychological stress continues to be endemic among teachers. Before the pandemic, teachers recorded the highest employee average for stress, anxiety, and depression with 2170 cases per 100,000 educators based on National Health Service general practitioner data on working days lost [3]. The socioeconomic effects extend beyond work absence as stress is a known risk factor for both psychological conditions such as depression and physiological diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes [2,4-6]. There is an organizational responsibility for educational leadership to reduce the stressors experienced by teaching staff. However, teachers knowing individually how they can better manage their stress is crucial for well-being and to avoid burnout, especially high school teachers with pastoral responsibilities in city schools, who report greater levels of pressure and strategic time management than colleagues in other roles or locations [7-10].

Understanding the value of digital support for teachers’ stress management requires knowledge of their experiences in the workplace, particularly with consumer technologies that are easily available. Of the limited teacher studies on digitally supported stress management, few focus on stress alone but do indicate that personal insight is generated [11-13]. Some research emphasizes burnout prevention, which is a more severe occupational outcome of ongoing stress [14]; others explore disorders such as depression or insomnia associated with stress and report on stress measures [15,16]. Technology has also been deployed as a small component of a wider stress intervention [17], or teachers are included in a wider cohort of participants [18]. We know that teachers use available consumer digital tools to support their stress management even if they find that doing so is constrained by educational contexts such as physical space, social relationships, and school culture [19]. Although some studies with teachers have used consumer wearables [12,13], knowledge of teachers’ actual experiences with and consequences of digitally supported stress management and what is meaningful to them in their occupational context is sparse. Such knowledge could inform both technology choice and personal understanding of the response to pressure, thus improving stress management strategies.

Therefore, the aims of this study were to address this gap by giving teachers an informed choice of technology to support their stress management and explore whether and how the technology used in the context of their work was valuable and significant for them. Unexpectedly, this study got underway just when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. This meant that we had the exceptional opportunity to explore teachers’ experiences both when working from home and then when back on the school premises, although the latter were still subject to hygiene restrictions. Inevitably, the pandemic added another source of stress, yet self-report survey data imply that COVID-19 did not change the prevalence of stress overall or the willingness of staff to report it. In both 2019 and 2021, a total of 84% of senior school leaders reported stress, and 60% and 57% of staff, respectively, said that they would not share an unmanageable stress issue with their employer [20,21].

In this paper, in common with much of the literature, we position stress as normal (not a disease) and experienced by most teachers to avoid, as much as possible, any sense of fault or stigma given that research shows that this is still an issue [22,23]. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence definition of stress can be adapted to an educator-focused description, viz, “the adverse reaction teachers (people) have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them” [24].

The World Health Organization positions stress as a determinant of mental health, which it defines as “a state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, to realize their abilities, to learn well and work well, and to contribute to their communities” [25]. For this study, stress is considered in the context of education, related to both mental health and physical well-being, with recognized symptoms in teachers [26-28]. This aligns with other teaching and computing literature where stress is described as an experience or reaction of discomfort [29], strain [30], and tension [31] and positioned as a workplace problem [32]. Given the variability with which the term “context” can be used and the difficulty deciphering which context is being referred to, we also drew on multidisciplinary domains of education, human factor, and informatics literature [33-37] to define the education workplace as the macrocontext; the temporal, physical, social, and cultural factors as mesocontexts; and the individual and their personally chosen strategy as the microcontext.

In this paper, we review work on understanding the effectiveness of digital stress interventions for teachers and in other workplaces and what is known about employees’ experiences with some of the interventions that have been studied. We then describe the digitally supported mechanisms that were offered to teachers to support their stress management strategies. We then present our study and results and discuss the significance and value of data and technologies to teachers and how this experience supported a more holistic understanding of stress and the need for self-care.

Knowing that there are consumer technologies that offer these mechanisms or features that could potentially support stress management strategies, this study focused on high school heads of year (generally referred to in this paper as teachers) using their chosen technology in the context of their work. Our research questions (RQs) were as follows: (1) In the context of their work, how do secondary school heads of year experience their chosen technology for stress self-management? and (2) Does digitally supported stress self-management change from working from home to working back in school?

We took a constructivist approach, embracing subjectivity in the interpretation of the data, a paradigm familiar to both human-computer interaction and education, thus enabling epistemic consistency. The consumer technologies chosen by teachers were the Withings Steel HR smartwatch; Wysa, an artificial intelligence chatbot based on cognitive behavioral therapy techniques; Daylio, a mood diary and activity-tracking app; and Teacher Tapp, a daily teacher survey with an educational blog. The findings complement the identification of facilitators of easy interaction and data presentation and barriers of hidden features and physical, social, and cultural contextual constraints to technology use in the educational context that is under review elsewhere [81].

The goal of this study was to understand teachers’ experiences of using their chosen consumer technology for stress management. We planned a longitudinal study that used semistructured interviews along with open- and closed-question surveys, feedback questionnaires, and memos as data sources. There are 2 papers on these data; this paper focuses on teachers’ long-term experiences with the technology, and the other focuses on barriers to and facilitators of its use.

All participants were recruited from schools in a Multi-Academy Trust based in South London. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic precipitating a national lockdown, invitations were sent by email following a verbal invitation from the principals, with participation facilitated on the internet. A total of 16 heads of year were invited, and 8 (50%) were still able to participate despite the pandemic, with the inclusion criteria specifying that they should not currently be receiving treatment for a clinical stress disorder such as posttraumatic stress disorder and that a willingness to talk about stress and trial some consumer technology to support their stress management strategy was required. Through the similarity of schools, locations, and roles of the participants (ie, heads of year with pastoral management roles), the planned exploration and comparison of teachers’ experiences with technology through deep, rich, thick narratives and analysis should be more plausible [82].

This research was approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (approval ID: UCLIC_1920_004_Staff_BlandfordManning). The information and consent forms detailed the study protocol, that the data would contribute to a study being undertaken as part of a PhD, and that all data would be stored pseudonymously and securely and would be anonymous once it had been aggregated. In addition, an ethical approach was maintained by reminding participants at every point of contact that they could withdraw from the study and that emotional support was available via the Education Support Partnership. Participants had their choice of technology paid for up to a maximum of £150 (US $183.10).

Before the first interview, workshops were conducted to help teachers make an informed choice of consumer technology based on their understanding of their personal stress management strategy and technology preferences. These were held on the web via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications) and used the Mentimeter app for anonymous interaction and Microsoft PowerPoint (Microsoft Corp) for presentation, and the teachers were given a choice of times to attend. As well as an introduction to the study, the workshop included an explanation of stress management strategies and how they could be digitally supported. It was recognized that, although this study did not seek to identify sources of stress, some of which could be outside the workplace, COVID-19 was adding a new source of stress for many that would have to be acknowledged. Teachers were then presented with a rigorously compiled taxonomy, the design of which has been described elsewhere [46]. The taxonomy enabled teachers to have some limited choice regarding the technology they were to use for the study. These technologies were framed in the workshop as digital companions, a deliberate approach that sought to acknowledge the users’ autonomy [83]; emphasize the mediating, collaborative role of the technology [84]; and avoid any connotations of consumption. The set of consumer technologies offered is shown in Figure 1. After feedback forms were received, teachers were emailed to arrange payment of a flat participation fee to cover the costs of their chosen technology and schedule their first interview.

A total of 8 semistructured interviews were conducted by the first author with each teacher at around the summer half-term at a time convenient to the teacher and then again at the end of the summer term (Multimedia Appendix 1). In total, 75% (6/8) of the teachers took part in a further interview around the autumn half-term, having agreed to extend the original study to a time when they were back on school premises. Of the 25% (2/8) of teachers lost to follow-up, there was no response from one, and the other teacher cancelled her interview because of illness. Each interview sought to explore the teachers’ experiences of using their technology for managing their stress, what they valued, and what was significant. The interviews reflected the constructivist paradigm of the research, which sought to capture the teachers’ lived experience of the phenomenon of consumer technology use for stress management [85-87]. The interview questions followed the 5-phased structure outlined by Blandford et al [88]. The 3 semistructured interview scripts had themes to which contexts were applied: expectations in the first interview (early summer), adoption and experiences in the second interview (end of summer), and evolution of use on school premises in the third interview (autumn). However, each interview was also tailored to each participant based on, first, their technology choice and workshop feedback questionnaire and drew on the usability goals [89]. In the case of the second and third interviews, they were based on the teachers’ responses to the previous interviews and the surveys (see the following section). Methodological validity and integrity were achieved by applying high and relevant standards and several different strategies for data collection [86,90,91].

The questions sought to explore what using the technology and the data generated meant to the teachers as they sought to manage their stress. Each teacher’s responses were copied into a file and added to a pseudonymized case study folder in NVivo (version 12; QSR International) after the interview. The length of each interview ranged from 32 to 76 minutes.

The intended study spanned 6 to 7 weeks of the summer term, and survey links were sent by email soon after the halfway mark. In total, 3 sets of themed survey questions were sent during the data collection week to prompt thinking about their perception of the data, stress relief activities, and the influence of the work setting so far on their technology (Multimedia Appendix 1). The response rate was 100% (8/8) on the first and last days of the week and 75% (6/8) midweek. The answers informed the second and third interview questions. A total of 14 more closed questions were asked at the end of the interview in the extended study in the autumn to capture final thoughts on what had been significant and valuable or not from using the technology. These survey responses also provided more data for triangulation along with the workshop feedback forms and memos created during the interviews.

All interviews were transcribed verbatim, with identifiers removed, and checked against the audio recordings for accuracy. Data from the interviews, surveys, memos, emails, and feedback forms were organized in NVivo using SimpleMind (versions 1.22 and 1.31; SimpleApps) to map the data, and codes were shared with the coauthors (AB and JEC). Notes and memos were made throughout the study and shared with the coauthors during analysis. Duration of technology use was based on self-report. The analysis was guided by a combined inductive (bottom-up from the data) and cognitive and social constructivist (the participants’ experiences and learning through interaction with others) thematic analysis. In total, 8 detailed descriptive case studies were compiled from the summer data, and 6 (75%) of these were extended to include data from the autumn term, adapting steps from 2 main sources [92,93]. A cross-case analysis was informed by interpretive phenomenological analysis to allow for exploration of meaning, patterns, and dynamics as well as idiographic accounts [94]. This approach enabled a deep analysis of the interrelation of the teachers’ roles, events, thinking, and responses within a particular context and the creation of narratives that acted as a patchwork of information from which similarities and differences could be identified (Multimedia Appendix 2 [86,95-97]). A summary of the teachers’ technology choices, years of teaching experience, chosen strategy and supported concept, rationale, duration of use, and reported use is shown in Table 1.

Of the 8 teachers interviewed twice in the summer, only 1 (12%) was working on the school premises, but by the autumn term, the 6 (100%) teachers involved in the extended study were all back on-site. The participants were ethnically diverse, but there was just 12% (1/8) of male teachers in both the summer and autumn studies (whereas men make up 35% of secondary school teachers). The youngest teacher was aged 28 years and the oldest was aged 58 years. COVID-19 hygiene rules meant that teachers were moving between classes in the autumn of 2020, year groups were segregated, and the school day was longer because of students’ staggered arrival and leaving times. All the teachers (8/8, 100%) had used technology for health or well-being before the study.

In total, 2 main themes were identified in both the summer and autumn term case studies, and 1 further theme was identified from the autumn analysis. First, in both school terms, the data collected by the wearables and contained in the apps powerfully demonstrated the physical and psychosocial demands of work and stressful situations. These data generated self-compassion (being kind and understanding toward oneself), prompting permission to destress, validating their subjective experiences, and increasing awareness of and generating empathy toward colleagues as well. Flowing from this permission, the second theme revealed that their stress management technology could also be a medium for indicating values. Using this technology enabled both a sense of belonging and being part of a community and could engender more trust through the autonomy it could support.

In the autumn term, the final theme built on the first 2 as teachers described how their understanding of their stress and value of self-care had, to an extent, become embedded and more intentional. They still interacted with their technologies but did not always need to before understanding that a situation was stressful and giving themselves permission to destress.

These themes are now described in more detail, with the teachers’ number, technology, and school term indicated.

Teachers described how, having personalized their technologies, both the data and information on well-being and activity enabled reflection on the toll of teaching on them. This consciousness led to self-compassion and a realization that, as well as capturing the demand, the data could affirm the action taken to look after oneself.

Teachers returned to school in the autumn having used their technology for at least 12 weeks, including over the summer holidays. The frequency of technology use dropped in the autumn term, with lack of time and opportunity given as reasons, but most teachers revealed how lessons learned could be applied in the moment.

They described being able to apply learning from the use of their technology and reflecting on the data, although some commented that working from home had given them the opportunity to learn and practice changes in habits, which may not have happened had their use begun on the school premises:

Learned helpfulness (where action or insight has become embedded and the original source of help is no longer required) did not always translate into behavior. One teacher described how her desire to look after herself in school was overridden when in the physical setting, surrounded by occupational demands. To still benefit, she would have to plan to use the technology more deliberately. She reflected that she could be more proactive, setting reminders to take a moment for herself, have lunch, or simply have a moment’s rest:

The duration of this longitudinal study of 8 teachers’ experiences of stress management using consumer technologies was from 6 to 27 weeks, and for 75% (6/8) of the participants, it extended from the end of summer to the autumn half-term. This presented the opportunity for a long period of exploration.

The themes generated from the cross-case analysis indicate an overarching virtuous cycle of experience initiated by extrinsic permission and the personal choice of technology. Interacting with the technology generated meaningful data, the existential significance of which permitted self-compassion and empathy, prompting confidence and self-management strategies, the value of which stimulated further engagement (Figure 2).

Together, these findings imply that consumer technologies can play a valuable role in teachers’ stress management, which we will now explore in more detail.

Data meaningfully captured some of the stress of teachers’ roles, and permitted compassion and self-care to resonate with themes of real-world awareness [76] and permission, which has been reported as a mechanism that facilitates teacher well-being in a taught (nondigital) mindfulness study [98]. Similarly, self-compassion has been found to improve through digitally supported stress management among health care students, where they were educated about the physiological impact of stress and provided with supported relaxation via an app [99]. This study validates this finding and demonstrates the explanatory power of contextually meaningful data alone, particularly real-time heart rate data. Such data are humanized by the context [100], and they gain existential significance [65]. When data quantified the toll of teaching through physical demand or capturing teachers’ emotional variations, this deeper, macrocontextual “educational” understanding of stress on themselves generated self-compassion. A few mixed feelings were expressed on awareness of stress at the personal, micro level, aligning with previous work highlighting the risk that perception of stress can, for some, lead to increased stress [101-103]. Given that we know the importance of stress management for good mental and physical health, this suggests that, when raising awareness of stress, it would be prudent to always offer signposting to or supply stress management interventions. Similarly, for some teachers in the study, choosing not to wear the Withings smartwatch at night was motivated by not wanting to know about poor sleep. Future research could also look at whether there are other sensor data that could capture the demands of work that teachers or other public-sector workers could find meaningful.

Data also took on the deeper significance beyond quantification to achievement, affirming teachers’ use of self-management strategies, creating affective ties [55] similar to the “qualified-self” (Boam and Webb, 2014, quoted by Lupton [104]). In this case, self-affirmation from thinking through rather than just from data was supported by visualizations enabling deeper reflection on achievements [55,105]. This complements and extends previous research on the positive framing of data in PI [106] and shows that reflection as a component of tracking can come after, not simply before, acting [107]. It also adds to the findings that self-affirmation through cognitive reappraisal using given self-affirmation statements for teachers generates positive emotions [108].

Through the populated taxonomy [46], teachers were given the choice of technology for stress management and how this could support their self-care strategies. In accordance with self-determination theory (SDT) [109], this autonomy is a key motivator leading to engagement and, therefore, one possible explanation for the lack of attrition in this study, with no one abandoning their technology before their final interview. Autonomy has been described as a key component within design architecture for engagement [110]. These findings extend the engagement narrative to without design, indicating that contextually appropriate strategies and concepts should guide users’ choice of technology. This reflects the understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all stress intervention [76] and the hypothesized personal preferences such as time, location, and personal relevance (ie, external autonomous factors) are important [111].

These preferences are linked to the finding of personalization. Personalization through curating frequency, naming, and timing of messages and haptic alerts was important, and all were directed toward personally meaningful activities or boundaries. The Daylio app allowed for some refinement to tracking, and teachers made conceptual links between, for instance, heart rate changes on their wearable companion app and the day’s events. Personalization (also called tailoring and customization) is a well-attested facilitator of engagement with apps [112] and a suggested guideline in PI stress management practices [66]. This study’s findings confirm the value of an individual approach to considering what data are relevant given peoples’ contexts [66,113].

The themes also affirm the value of social connectedness, noted in previous digital health research as highly valued [114] and important for engagement in broader digital mental health studies [115]. For some teachers, this study affirmed the concept of relatedness mediating thriving through technology design, as posited by the Motivation, Engagement, and Thriving in User Experience model, which draws on SDT [116]. Seeing both other teachers’ responses on Teacher Tapp and messages from colleagues and family generated a sense of connection and belonging. This insight emphasizes the importance of occupational and social connection at times of separation, which will be worth remembering should teachers ever have to work remotely again. Owing to COVID-19 restrictions, this study was not able to verify the mutual support for activity through shared data previously shown with wearables offering social connection [117], including among teachers [40]. Digital connectedness with colleagues was less important when back on the school premises, where the shared environment permitted social (mesocontextual) conditions for relatedness even with COVID-19 restrictions on staff movement.

Teachers’ confidence in understanding stress was demonstrated through compassion toward colleagues. Mesolevel (eg, culture) and microcontextual (eg, personal)-level perceptions of trust and support are predictors of lower stress and burnout among teachers [7]. Personal confidence was generated because the data were contextually situated and interpreted. Of note were the teachers who used the Teacher Tapp and Wysa apps. The participant who chose Wysa found it empathetic, as designed [58], but also that its use generated empathy for others, a transferability that appears to be novel, although hinted at when a gamified, visually responsive avatar was used in a web-based stress self-help system [75]. This finding also complements our other findings on relatedness. The 25% (2/8) of participants who accessed Teacher Tapp during the lockdown appreciated knowing how other teachers were feeling in uniquely isolated conditions. The digitally enabled outcome of confidence can be seen to be mediated by both connectedness and competence, which are components of SDT.

The final theme corroborates the conclusions of other studies that a reduction in the use of technology does not necessarily equate to abandonment [106]. Resilience without reliance on activity tracking should be considered a strength of PI, and it is important not to expect ongoing dependency on technology [118,119].

As a counter to the “learned helplessness” by Seligman [120], 83% (5/6) of the teachers in the autumn described an embedded notion of “learned helpfulness” as they were able to apply stress management strategies back in school without using technology in the moment. This does not contradict the initial need for sustained engagement [121,122], but it does raise questions about the duration of the effect and designing in the opportunity to reminisce [106]. This study benefited from a long extension that allowed for the study of evolving meaning making and demonstrated some embedding of positive habits, which has been shown in other shorter studies on stress management in the workplace [76].

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of high school head of year experiences with technology-enabled stress self-management. Rich, contextualized data from situated experiences and evolution of use were collected over an extended period, enabling deep and detailed insight into their existential significance. A total of 8 teachers still completed the summer study despite the pressures of COVID-19. This longitudinal study provided evidence of the value of technology to teachers for stress management support and the value of digitally supported self-care in an occupation renowned for its stressfulness.

A potential weakness is that participation meant that there was some extrinsic motivation and would have raised awareness of stress and self-care, so a digital placebo effect is a possibility but possibly less of a concern given our focus on experience rather than efficacy [123-125]. However, this placebo effect could have resulted in more positive bias toward the intervention, which would have to be addressed in future studies on efficacy. In addition, as only half of the 16 teachers who were approached before the pandemic took part and 2 were lost to follow-up in the extended period, volunteer (selection) bias needs to be taken into account in the findings. In addition, only 12% (1/8) of the participants were male, which could have skewed the findings. Most participants had time to adopt their technology in a quieter environment as most worked from home at the start of the pandemic, even though their working days could still be long and contain different sources of stress than usual. Further research could explore the experiences of technology adoption while in school under usual circumstances. Another limitation was the restricted choice of consumer technologies. A limited choice was given so that assurances could be given on suitability, availability, usability, security, validity, and cost. Thus, there was a trade-off between assurance and full autonomy, something that could be explored further. In addition, apart from Wysa, the teachers did not choose technologies that offered treatment and guided self-management or were entertainment based. This could be due to the small number of participants; a preference for the immediacy of a wearable; or, in the case of treatment, not wanting to see stress as something to be medicalized, as one teacher commented. This too could be further investigated, as could examining the incorporation of technology-supported stress management into teacher training with an active control (against non–technology-supported stress interventions).

Stress remains a significant problem for most teachers, including those in leadership roles. This research is one of the first to critically explore heads of year’s experiences of using consumer technology to support their stress-coping strategies. These findings highlight the importance of taking a situated approach to understanding the real-world, holistic significance and value of data. This should encourage similar studies to refine digital interventions for all teachers and other workers in high-stress environments. The implications of the analysis are that school leaders should encourage consumer technology use to generate a deeper, school-wide understanding of stress and that such use can inform how stress can be mitigated.

The findings of this study are context and condition specific yet indicate that designers would benefit from considering context-based interactions in occupational environments for different health conditions. In collaboration, developers, employees, and policy makers could all better ensure that consumer technologies can improve workforce health outcomes. Achieving this would require going beyond user acceptance testing to capturing user experiences in the real world.