ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Technostress and time spent online. A cross-cultural comparison for teachers and students.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profiles and transitions of psychological adaptation in AI-assisted Japanese language learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The ecological mechanism of digital technology integration: a comparative study of psychological and institutional support among university teachers in China and Kazakhstan.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Protective factors against technostress in secondary school teachers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Technostress Generated by Artificial Intelligence on the Quality of Life: The Mediating Role of Positive and Negative Affect.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mental health in the "era" of artificial intelligence: technostress and the perceived impact on anxiety and depressive disorders-an SEM analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Research shows that ICT is beneficial for academics and students, aiding in overcoming distance barriers, streamlining administration, and improving teaching and learning processes. However, the negative impact of technology, particularly technostress, are garnering attention. In the context of the concerns about technostress among higher education institutions (HEI), the aim of the study is to analyze the technostress creators and inhibitors for university teachers and students in different European countries. The topical concept of digital well-being is seen as "a subjective individual experience of optimal balance between the benefits and drawbacks obtained from mobile connectivity, focusing on the personal perception of what amount of time spent using technology is optimal so that well-being is preserved". Method: To explore specific aspects related to use of technology, two - parallel online surveys for academics ( Results: The findings suggest that the perceived optimal use of technology is significantly lower than the actual use for all the contexts. Overuse of technology was associated with technostress. Our results also showed that technology self-efficacy and social support from colleagues and teachers are negatively associated with technostress. Country differences regarding technostress and time spent online were also observed. Discussions: Despite the needed caution in interpreting the results because of the unbalanced sample size across countries, the results could be used to develop research and support interventions within European countries to promote digital well-being, a better work-life balance with further positive effects on academic satisfaction and work/learning productivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.