Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Jul 10;35(4):e70306. doi: 10.1111/inm.70306

Workaholism, Mindfulness, and Work‐Related Quality of Life Among Nursing Educators in Saudi Nursing Colleges: A Multisite Cross‐Sectional Study

Daniel Joseph E Berdida 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13352297  PMID: 42429037

ABSTRACT

Workaholism has been widely examined among employees across occupational groups, but limited empirical evidence is available on its association with work‐related quality of life (WRQoL) among nursing educators. This study examined whether mindfulness statistically mediated the association between workaholism and WRQoL among nursing educators. A multisite observational study using a cross‐sectional and correlational design was conducted among nursing educators from four nursing colleges in Saudi Arabia using consecutive and snowball sampling. Between February and July 2025, data were collected using three validated self‐report scales. Structural equation modelling, mediation analysis, and path analysis were used to examine the hypothesised associations among the study variables. Workaholism was negatively associated with WRQoL (β D  = −0.46, 95% CI = −0.63 to −0.29, p = 0.004) and mindfulness (β D  = −0.41, 95% CI = −0.56 to −0.21, p = 0.004). Mindfulness was positively associated with WRQoL (β D  = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.52, p = 0.004). A statistically significant indirect association was observed between workaholism and WRQoL through mindfulness, consistent with statistical mediation (β I  = −0.15, 95% CI = −0.24 to −0.05, p = 0.004). In the final model, workaholism accounted for 17.10% of the variance in mindfulness, whereas workaholism and mindfulness together accounted for 46.60% of the variance in WRQoL. These findings suggest that higher workaholism is associated with lower mindfulness and WRQoL, while higher mindfulness is associated with better WRQoL among nursing educators. Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn and generalisability is limited by the non‐probability sample, the results may inform institutional strategies in similar nursing education settings that address workaholic tendencies and support mindfulness‐informed approaches to educator well‐being.

Keywords: mindfulness, nursing educators, workaholism, work‐related quality of life

1. Introduction

Workaholism has received increasing attention in occupational health research because of its association with excessive work involvement, psychological strain, impaired recovery, and reduced well‐being. In 2021, the World Health Organization and International Labour Organization reported that exposure to long working hours, particularly working ≥ 55 h per week, was associated with increased morbidity and mortality from ischaemic heart disease and stroke across 194 countries (Pega et al. 2021; World Health Organization 2021). Although long working hours are not identical to workaholism, this evidence highlights the health risks associated with sustained overwork and supports the need to examine work‐related behaviours that may compromise employees' quality of life (QoL). This concern is particularly relevant to service‐oriented professions, including nursing, where workload demands, emotional labour, role complexity, and professional responsibility may heighten vulnerability to occupational stress and poor mental health (Andersen et al. 2023).

Nursing educators teach, mentor, supervise, and prepare future nurses through clinical expertise, academic instruction, research, and leadership in healthcare education settings (Billings and Halstead 2020). Nursing is considered one of the most demanding and rigorous higher education programmes (Lavoie‐Tremblay et al. 2022). These demands affect both nursing educators and students and may contribute to stress, anxiety, and reduced QoL (Berdida 2023; Berdida and Grande 2023). Nursing educators are expected to manage multiple roles, including teaching, clinical supervision, student support, research productivity, administrative work, and institutional service (American Association of Colleges of Nursing 2024). To meet these expectations, they may dedicate substantial time, energy, and personal resources to work (Abou Hashish et al. 2024). While high work involvement may support achievement, workaholism is associated with several adverse outcomes, including burnout, work–family conflict, impaired recovery, and diminished QoL (Taris and de Jonge 2024).

Evidence from clinical nursing settings supports the link between demanding work conditions and reduced occupational well‐being. For example, Abbasi et al. (2019) found that workload, overtime hours, number of patients per shift, age, and work experience were associated with work‐related quality of life (WRQoL) among nurses working in highly complex hospital units. Similarly, Fathi et al. (2024) reported that mental workload, occupational fatigue, and job stress were significantly interrelated among emergency nurses. Other nursing studies have also shown that occupational fatigue and safety climate are important workplace concerns among nurses (Dopolani et al. 2022; Poursadeqiyan et al. 2020; Vatani et al. 2021). These studies provide useful evidence that nurses' work conditions are closely linked to occupational health and well‐being. However, most of this evidence comes from clinical nursing settings, while nursing educators remain less examined despite their overlapping academic, clinical, supervisory, research, and administrative responsibilities.

Although this study focuses on nursing educators rather than mental health nurses specifically, its concerns are directly relevant to mental health nursing. Workaholism, chronic occupational stress, reduced WRQoL, and diminished mindfulness reflect interrelated occupational mental health issues that can affect nurses' psychological well‐being, professional functioning, and capacity to sustain compassionate educational and clinical environments. Mental health nursing has an important contribution to make in this area by promoting early recognition of occupational distress, supporting psychologically safe workplaces, and informing interventions that strengthen self‐awareness, emotional regulation, and recovery from work demands. Accordingly, examining the relationship between workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL among nursing educators may help extend mental health nursing knowledge beyond clinical service delivery and into preventive, educational, and organisational mental health practice.

More than ever, nursing educators occupy a critical position in shaping future generations of nurses who will rebuild and sustain the nursing workforce (International Council of Nurses 2023). Several protective factors, such as self‐efficacy, resilience, and mindfulness, have been reported in other professions, including managers, teachers, and doctors, as having positive effects in reducing the adverse consequences of workaholism (Andersen et al. 2023; Daniel et al. 2022; Konte 2020). Nurses' workaholism and associated factors, such as professional QoL and work–family conflict, have been documented (Ali Zakeri et al. 2022; Gillet et al. 2021). Previous studies have examined mindfulness in relation to workaholism, work–family conflict, workplace spirituality, work‐life balance, and professional benefits (Daniel et al. 2022; Lin et al. 2024). However, empirical evidence remains limited regarding the statistical indirect association among workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL among nursing educators. To our knowledge, this relationship has not been examined among nursing educators in Saudi nursing colleges. Thus, this study examined the mediating role of mindfulness in the association between workaholism and WRQoL among nursing educators and considered the implications of these relationships for mental health nursing practice, education, and policy.

2. Background

Workaholism is characterized by experiencing intrinsic pressure to work, thinking about work constantly while not working, and going above and beyond what is normal for a worker to do (Andreassen 2014; Taris 2022). On the one hand, it may lead to workers' hyper‐performance or overachievement because of their excessive work engagement and enjoyment; conversely, it adversely impacts their QoL (Taris 2022). The global workaholism prevalence is 14% (Andersen et al. 2023), while among nurses reportedly diverse. For instance, workaholism prevalence among emergency and intensive care nurses was 28% (Ruiz‐Garcia et al. 2022) while 59% among nursing educators (Abou Hashish et al. 2024), indicating that nursing educators tend to develop workaholism. French nurses' workaholism intensified work–family conflict and reduced work performance and family life satisfaction (Gillet et al. 2021). Meanwhile, nursing educators' workaholism impacts personal (e.g., work–family conflict, poor QoL), work status (e.g., increased intent to leave, career dissatisfaction, burnout, poor performance), and health (e.g., insomnia, fatigue, anxiety) aspects (Abou Hashish et al. 2024). Nonetheless, no study examined the impacts of nursing educators' workaholism on WRQoL.

WRQoL is a multidimensional construct involving workers' physical, emotional, and mental well‐being within their employment context and includes domains such as general well‐being, job and career satisfaction, home–work interface, control at work, working conditions, and stress at work (Easton and Van Laar 2018; Silarova et al. 2022). During the COVID‐19 pandemic, WRQoL was highlighted due to extreme burnout, job dissatisfaction, and nurse safety issues (Poku et al. 2023). WRQoL was reportedly low among clinical nurses compared with nursing educators, while remuneration, age, and nature of work significantly predicted their WRQoL (Poku et al. 2023). Accordingly, nurses enhanced their WRQoL through open communication, seeking institutional and family support, and recreational activities (Poku et al. 2023). Similarly, nursing educators during the pandemic had low WRQoL. Thus, they opted to promote a healthy personal working environment to counteract its negative impacts (Farber et al. 2023). Therefore, understanding how WRQoL is impacted by workaholism post‐pandemic among nursing educators necessitates further investigations.

Mindfulness is well‐established in the literature as a protective factor in reducing stress, anxiety, and burnout (Ali Zakeri et al. 2022; Berdida et al. 2023; Lin et al. 2024). Mindfulness's primary attribute is focusing on the here‐and‐now situations and conditions (Brown and Ryan 2003). This factor involves a non‐judgmental perception and purposeful activity of examining experiences (Kabat‐Zinn 2003). Nurses practicing mindfulness reduce their stress and burnout symptoms effectively (Ali Zakeri et al. 2022). Chinese nurses' mindfulness positively influenced their workplace spirituality and work‐life balance (Lin et al. 2024). Meanwhile, mindfulness‐based stress reduction programs for managers potentiated their interpersonal skills and organizational competence, thus improving organizational outcomes (Konte 2020). Among French workers, mindfulness‐based training was an important buffer between workaholism and work–family conflict relationships (Daniel et al. 2022). However, studies about the mindfulness mediating effect between workaholism and WRQoL among nursing educators still need to be investigated.

From a mental health nursing perspective, mindfulness is not only an individual coping strategy but also a potentially useful component of broader occupational mental health promotion. Mental health nurses are well positioned to identify psychological distress, support adaptive coping, facilitate reflective practice, and contribute to workplace interventions that address stress, emotional exhaustion, and impaired well‐being. In nursing education settings, these roles may include collaboration with faculty leaders, occupational health teams, and counselling services to develop programmes that reduce compulsive overwork and strengthen educators' psychological resilience. Therefore, investigating mindfulness as a potential mediator between workaholism and WRQoL can inform mental health nursing approaches to prevention, early intervention, and workplace well‐being.

2.1. Theoretical Underpinning

The Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the relationship between workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL in nursing education (Demerouti et al. 2001). According to the JD‐R model, every occupation has specific demands, such as workload, student supervision, time pressure, administrative responsibilities, and clinical teaching expectations, as well as resources, such as autonomy, collegial support, leadership, and access to psychological support. Workaholism may be understood as a maladaptive response to sustained job demands and internal pressure to work excessively, often at the expense of recovery, health, and personal life (Demerouti et al. 2001). In contrast, mindfulness can be viewed as a personal resource that supports emotional regulation, attentional control, and stress resilience (Kabat‐Zinn 2003).

This framework is particularly relevant to mental health nursing because it links work conditions, personal resources, and psychological well‐being. Mental health nurses can use this perspective to support workplace mental health promotion, early recognition of occupational distress, and interventions that strengthen both individual coping and organizational resources. In nursing education, where academic, clinical, and emotional demands intersect, the JD‐R model helps explain how workaholism may compromise WRQoL and how mindfulness may help reduce the strength of this association.

2.2. Research Hypotheses

Considering the limitations of previous studies, this investigation addressed the following hypotheses (Figure 1):

Nursing educators' workaholism is negatively associated with WRQoL.

Nursing educators' workaholism is negatively associated with mindfulness.

Nursing educators' mindfulness is positively associated with WRQoL.

A statistically significant indirect association is observed between workaholism and WRQoL through mindfulness.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Theoretical and hypothetical model of the associations of workaholism, mindfulness, and work‐related quality of life.

3. Methods

3.1. Design

An observational study utilizing cross‐sectional and correlational approaches. The STROBE reporting guidelines directed reporting crucial aspects of this investigation (File S1).

3.2. Setting, Participants, and Sampling

This study was conducted in four nursing colleges across three regions in Saudi Arabia. Settings 1 and 2 were a privately owned college and a government‐run university in the northern region, respectively. Setting 3 was a nursing college administered by a state university in the north‐central region. Setting 4 was the nursing department of a private college with a state‐of‐the‐art medical centre located in the western region. Nursing educators were recruited using consecutive and snowball sampling. To invite them, an email containing an invitation letter and an online survey link was sent via email or social media platforms.

Inclusion criteria were: (a) nursing educators working in academia for at least 1 year, (b) actively employed in the identified settings, and (c) willing to provide informed consent. Educators who were employed in hospitals or had less than 1 year of academic experience were excluded. A sample size of at least 200 is recommended for structural equation modelling studies (Kline 2023). We invited 400 nursing educators to participate. Of these, 246 accessed the online survey link, yielding an initial response/access rate of 61.5%. Thirty‐five individuals did not provide informed consent and were excluded before proceeding to the survey items. The final analytic sample consisted of 211 consenting nursing educators, representing 52.75% of those invited. All 211 participants completed the required survey items and provided valid responses for the study variables; therefore, no item‐level missing data were noted (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Participant flow diagram.

3.3. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Research Committee of a private nursing college in Saudi Arabia before data collection commenced (Serial No.: NCN‐12012025‐24; Date Approved: 13/01/2025). The study was conducted only in Saudi Arabia, specifically in four nursing colleges across three Saudi regions. Although some participants were Filipino by nationality, all participants were employed as nursing educators in the Saudi institutions included in the study. No data were collected from Philippine institutions; therefore, additional ethics approval from Philippine institutions was not required. The online survey form included a preliminary section outlining the research's description, objectives, participants' rights, withdrawal procedures, and potential risks and benefits. Following this section, an informed consent form was presented. Consent was obtained when participants selected the statement, “I voluntarily participate in this research.” Throughout this investigation, researchers adhered to ethical principles, including voluntary participation, anonymity, confidentiality, respect, and non‐maleficence. Moreover, the researcher followed the ethical stipulations in the 2024 Declaration of Helsinki. To ensure anonymity, personal information such as names, cellphone numbers, and addresses was not collected. Data confidentiality was maintained by storing responses on a password‐protected laptop used exclusively for this research and accessible only to the principal investigator. No incentives were provided, and participants were assured that refusal or withdrawal would not affect their employment status.

3.4. Instruments

This study employed a two‐part online survey questionnaire. Part 1 collected the demographic profiles (e.g., age, sex, nationality, courses taught, employment rank, and years of teaching experience). Part 2 contained the three standardized self‐report scales: the 10‐item Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS‐10)‐English version (Schaufeli, Shimazu, and Taris 2009), the 23‐item Work‐related Quality of Life Scale (WRQoL; Easton and Van Laar 2018), and the 15‐item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown and Ryan 2003).

Workaholism among nursing educators was assessed using the English version of the DUWAS‐10 (Schaufeli, Shimazu, and Taris 2009). The scale comprises two subscales: Working Excessively (WE) and Working Compulsively (WC), each containing five items. Items are scored on a 4‐point Likert scale (1 = almost never to 4 = almost always). A cut‐off score of 2.5 is used for both subscales. Scores above 2.5 on both indicate workaholism. A score above 2.5 on WE and below 2.5 on WC reflects a hardworking profile, while the reverse suggests compulsive working behaviour. Scores below 2.5 on both subscales indicate a relaxed working style. The original Cronbach's alpha was 0.78, and the scale recently demonstrated acceptable reliability among nursing educators (α = 0.88; Abou Hashish et al. 2024). For this study, the alpha was 0.85.

The 23‐item WRQoL scale developed by Easton and Van Laar (2018) was used to ascertain nursing educators' WRQoL. The scale consists of six dimensions: General Well‐Being (6 items), Job and Career Satisfaction (6 items), Home–Work Interface (3 items), Control at Work (3 items), Working Conditions (3 items), and Stress at Work (2 items). Each item is rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Total scores range from 23 to 115, with the following interpretations: 23–73 indicates low WRQoL, 74–84 reflects average WRQoL, and 85–115 denotes high WRQoL. The scale's original version demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.91). It has also shown reliability among nursing educators (α = 0.81; Poku et al. 2023). In this study, the scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92, indicating good reliability.

Mindfulness among nursing educators was assessed using the 15‐item MAAS (Brown and Ryan 2003). Each item is rated on a 6‐point Likert scale (1 “nearly always” to 6 “almost never”). The possible scores range between 15 and 90. Thus, higher scores indicating greater levels of mindfulness. The original scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.80 to 0.87. For this study, the scale showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.90).

3.5. Data Collection

Following ethical approval, data collection commenced on February 2 and concluded on July 31, 2025. Data were gathered using an online survey form. The survey link was distributed to nursing educators via their institutional email addresses and group chats on social media platforms. Additionally, the link was shared with department heads for wider dissemination. Participation was completely voluntary and conducted without identifying participants. To maximize participation, monthly reminders were sent through email and group chats throughout the data collection period, ensuring that nursing educators remained informed about the opportunity to take part in the study.

3.6. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows and AMOS version 20.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Statistical significance was set at a p value of < 0.05. Prior to analysis, the dataset was screened for completeness, invalid responses, and item‐level missing data. All 211 consenting participants had complete and valid responses for the study variables. Therefore, missing data procedures, such as listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, or imputation, were not required. Descriptive statistics used were mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range, frequency, and percentage. Data normality—both univariate and multivariate—was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk and Doornik‐Hansen tests. All continuous variables met the assumption of normality (p > 0.05), except for age and experience years as an educator.

Initial correlations among workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL were analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (Daniel and Cross 2018). Covariance‐based structural equation modelling (CB‐SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to test the theoretical model of interrelationships among the study variables. In the SEM, WRQoL was specified as a latent construct indicated by its six subscales: General Well‐Being, Job and Career Satisfaction, Home–Work Interface, Control at Work, Working Conditions, and Stress at Work. This specification was based on the original WRQoL scale structure, which conceptualises WRQoL as a multidimensional construct. The present study focused on the broader WRQoL construct rather than separate subscale‐level mediation models because the primary aim was to examine the statistical indirect association among workaholism, mindfulness, and overall WRQoL.

Model fit was evaluated using the following criteria: χ 2/df ≤ 3.00, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.08 (Byrne 2010), comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90, goodness‐of‐fit index (GFI) ≥ 0.90, and a higher parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) (Huang et al. 2010). Statistical mediation analysis was also conducted using path analysis to analyse the mediating role of mindfulness. The significance and stability of path coefficients and model fit parameters were appraised using bootstrapping procedures (5000 resamples and bias‐corrected confidence intervals at 95% level).

4. Results

4.1. Participants' Demographic Characteristics

Participants demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median age was 40.00 years (IQR = 38.00–50.00), with the majority being female (68.7%) and from the Philippines (33.6%). Participants had a median of 13.00 years of experience as educators (IQR = 10.00–20.00). Most held the rank of assistant professor (32.2%) and were primarily teaching medical‐surgical nursing. Despite their academic roles, 33.6% of the participants reported ongoing involvement in direct patient care.

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 211).

Characteristics Summary statistics
Age (years; Md, IQR) 40.00 (38.00–50.00)
Sex (f, %)
Male 66 (31.30%)
Female 145 (68.70%)
Country (f, %)
Egypt 53 (25.10%)
India 24 (11.40%)
Jordan 13 (6.20%)
Philippines 71 (33.60%)
Saudi Arabia 42 (19.90%)
Tunisia 3 (1.40%)
Yemen 5 (2.40%)
Position as Educator (f, %)
Instructor 52 (24.60%)
Assistant Professor 68 (32.20%)
Associate Professor 21 (10.00%)
Professor 14 (6.60%)
Lecturer 14 (6.60%)
Senior Lecturer 28 (13.30%)
Nurse Tutor 7 (3.30%)
Nurse Practitioner 7 (3.30%)
Courses Taught* (f, %)
Fundamentals of Nursing 69 (32.70%)
Anatomy and Physiology 8 (3.79%)
Health Assessment and Promotions 14 (6.64%)
Maternal‐Child Health Nursing 43 (20.38%)
Community Health Nursing 41 (19.43%)
Medical‐Surgical Nursing 82 (38.86%)
Mental Health Nursing 38 (18.01%)
Geriatric Nursing 18 (8.53%)
Family Health Nursing 15 (7.11%)
Nursing Leadership and Management 50 (23.70%)
Nursing Research 33 (15.64%)
Post‐Baccalaureate courses 9 (4.27%)
Duration as Educator (Years; Md, IQR) 13.00 (10.00–20.00)
Direct patient care (f, %)
Yes 71 (33.65%)
No 140 (66.35%)
Open in a new tab
*

Multiple responses.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Workaholism, Mindfulness, and WRQoL

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL. The mean overall workaholism score was 2.91 (SD = 0.75), indicating a moderately high level. Among the dimensions of workaholism, working excessively had the highest mean score at 2.97 (SD = 0.80). The mean mindfulness score was 4.49 (SD = 0.52), suggesting a high level of mindfulness, while the overall WRQoL score was 3.66 (SD = 0.25), reflecting a moderate or average quality of work life. Among the WRQoL subscales, home–work interface had the highest mean score (M = 4.25, SD = 0.46), followed closely by job and career satisfaction (M = 4.20, SD = 0.46) and working conditions (M = 4.17, SD = 0.52). In contrast, stress at work recorded the lowest mean score (M = 1.69, SD = 0.55).

TABLE 2.

Descriptive statistics of workaholism, mindfulness, and work‐related quality of life among the participants (n = 211).

Variables Mean (x̄) SD Score range
Workaholism 2.91 0.75 1.00 to 4.00
Working excessively 2.97 0.80 1.00 to 4.00
Working compulsively 2.84 0.86 1.00 to 4.00
Mindfulness 4.49 0.52 1.00 to 6.00
Work‐Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) 3.66 0.25 1.00 to 5.00
General Well‐Being (GWB) 3.62 0.48 1.00 to 5.00
Home‐Work Interface (HWI) 4.25 0.46 1.00 to 5.00
Job‐Career Satisfaction (JCS) 4.20 0.46 1.00 to 5.00
Control at Work (CAW) 4.04 0.66 1.00 to 5.00
Working Conditions (WCS) 4.17 0.52 1.00 to 5.00
Stress at Work (SAW) 1.69 0.55 1.00 to 5.00
Open in a new tab

4.3. Associations of Workaholism, Mindfulness, and WRQoL

The correlation analyses of the associations of workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL are illustrated in Table 3. It can be noted that the two dimensions of workaholism—working excessively and compulsively—were negatively and significantly associated with mindfulness. Likewise, these dimensions of workaholism had negative, significant associations with the first five domains of WRQoL and a significant positive correlation with the last domain, stress at work. Mindfulness, for this part, was positively associated with the majority of the facets of WRQoL, with r‐values ranging from 0.232 to 0.421, but had a negative correlation with the last domain, stress at work (r = −0.275, p = 0.001).

TABLE 3.

Correlation coefficients of the associations of Workaholism, Mindfulness, and Work‐Related Quality of Life among the participants (n = 211).

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

  1. Working Excessively (Workaholism)

 — — — — — — — —
  • 2

    Working Compulsively (Workaholism)

 0.613* (0.001) — — — — — — —
  • 3

    Mindfulness

 −0.363* (0.001) −0.277* (0.001) — — — — — —
  • 4

    General Well‐Being (Work‐Related Quality of Life)

 −0.231* (0.001) −0.230* (0.001) 0.421* (0.001) — — — — —
  • 5

    Home‐Work Interface (Work‐Related Quality of Life)

 −0.474* (0.001) −0.361* (0.001) 0.326* (0.001) 0.246* (0.001) — — — —
  • 6

    Job‐Career Satisfaction (Work‐Related Quality of Life)

 −0.362* (0.001) −0.315* (0.001) 0.342* (0.001) 0.358* (0.001) 0.564* (0.001) — — —
  • 7

    Control at Work (Work‐Related Quality of Life)

 −0.263* (0.001) −0.198* (0.004) 0.490* (0.001) 0.366* (0.001) 0.464* (0.001) 0.439* (0.001) — —
  • 8

    Working Conditions (Work‐Related Quality of Life)

 −0.197* (0.004) −0.220* (0.001) 0.232* (0.001) 0.281* (0.001) 0.192* (0.005) 0.237* (0.001) 0.153* (0.026) —
  • 9

    Stress at Work (Work‐Related Quality of Life)

 0.66* (0.001) 0.293* (0.001) −0.275* (0.001) −0.369* (0.001) −0.492* (0.001) −0.465* (0.001) −0.354* (0.001) −0.260* (0.001)
Open in a new tab

Note: Values are presented as r‐value (p value).

*

Significant at 0.05.

4.4. Validity and Reliability of Measurement Models

The validity and reliability of the measurement models of workaholism, mindfulness, and quality of life were evaluated. For the factor loadings of workaholism, values ranged from 0.65 to 0.84 and the two‐factor structure had acceptable model fit (χ 2 /df = 2.87, RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.94). The scale reliability was 0.88, the composite reliability (CR) was 0.93, the average variance explained (AVE) was 0.57, and the heterotrait‐monotrait (HTMT) ratio was 0.61. For mindfulness, the factor loadings varied from 0.61 to 0.95, the scale reliability was 0.92, the CR was 0.93, and the AVE was 0.48. The factor structure of mindfulness also had acceptable fit indices (χ 2 /df = 1.72, RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96). For the six‐factor structure of quality of life, the factor loadings ranged from 0.59 to 0.93, and it had acceptable model fit (χ 2 /df = 2.97, RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90). The scale reliability was 0.942, the CR was 0.963, the AVE was 0.55, and the HTMT ratios ranged from 0.55 to 0.88. These results denote that the three constructs had acceptable internal consistency and convergent validity since factor loadings ≥ 0.40, Cronbach's alpha and CR were ≥ 0.70 and the AVE estimates were ≥ 0.50. Discriminant validity was also ascertained since HMTM criteria were ≤ 0.90.

Common methods bias (CMB) was analysed using Harman's single factor test and latent common method approach. Results of Harman's single factor test indicated that workaholism had poor model fit, but latent common method analysis showed that CMB was not statistically significant (p = 0.116). For mindfulness, latent common method analysis indicated that CMB was not significant (p = 0.966). Analyses for quality of life also showed that Harman's single factor test showed poor model fit for a one‐factor structure, and latent common method analysis indicated that CMB was not statistically significant (p = 0.095).

4.5. Structural Model of the Associations of Workaholism, Mindfulness, and WRQoL

In the structural model, WRQoL was modelled as a latent construct represented by its six subscales. This approach allowed the analysis to retain the multidimensional structure of WRQoL while testing the hypothesised associations among workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL. Figure 1 illustrates the path diagram of the hypothesised model of association of workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL, while Table 4 depicts the model fit indices of the different models. It can be noted that the hypothesised model has borderline model fit indices. Modification indices results also recommended a correlation between the error terms of the first two domains of WRQoL (MI = 12.78, ΔPar. = 0.04). These results were the basis for respecifying the hypothesised model.

TABLE 4.

Model fit parameters of the emerging model (n = 211).

Model CMIN RMSEA 90% CI CFI GFI PNFI
χ 2 df χ 2/df (p value) RMSEA (p value) Lower bound Upper bound
Acceptable threshold — — ≤ 3.00 (> 0.05) ≤ 0.08 (> 0.05) — — ≥ 0.90 ≥ 0.90 EM > HM
Hypothesised model 64.50 25 2.58 (0.001) 0.087 (0.012) 0.061 0.113 0.925 0.934 0.610
Emerging model 47.25 24 1.97 (0.003) 0.068 (0.142) 0.039 0.096 0.956 0.953 0.614
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: χ 2, Chi‐Square; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; df, Degrees of Freedom; GFI, Goodness‐of‐Fit Index; PNFI, Parsimonious Normal Fit Index; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Analyses of the emerging model (Figure 3) after one iteration of respecification showed good model fit indices (Table 4). Workaholism had both direct (β D  = −0.46, 95% CI = −0.63 to −0.29, p = 0.004) and indirect (β I  = −0.15, 95% CI = −0.24 to −0.05, p = 0.004), statistically significant, negative associations with WRQoL, the latter association being statistically mediated by mindfulness, and had the highest total effects (β T  = −0.60, 95% CI = −0.73 to −0.44, p = 0.004). Results also indicated that workaholism directly and negatively associated (β D  = −0.41, 95% CI = −0.56 to −0.21, p = 0.004) with mindfulness. The emerging model also reveals that mindfulness had a direct, positive association with WRQoL (β D  = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.52, p = 0.004). A total of 17.10% of the variance of mindfulness was explained by workaholism, while 46.60% of the total variance of WRQoL was measured by both workaholism and mindfulness.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Emerging model of the associations of workaholism, mindfulness, and work‐related quality of life.

5. Discussion

This study examined the associations among workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL among nursing educators and considered their implications for mental health nursing. Four key findings emerged. First, workaholism was negatively associated with WRQoL. Second, workaholism was negatively associated with mindfulness. Third, mindfulness was positively associated with WRQoL. Fourth, mindfulness statistically mediated the association between workaholism and WRQoL. These findings suggest that workaholism and mindfulness are important occupational mental health factors in nursing education. They also highlight opportunities for mental health nursing to contribute to prevention, early intervention, and workplace well‐being strategies for nurse educators.

The findings demonstrated that workaholism among nursing educators was associated with lower WRQoL (confirming Hypothesis 1). Using Cohen's conventional benchmarks for standardized effects, where values around 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 are commonly interpreted as small, moderate, and large, respectively, the standardized coefficient observed in this study (β = −0.46) may be interpreted as a moderate‐to‐large negative association (Cohen 1988; Nieminen 2022). This suggests that workaholism was not only statistically significant but also meaningfully associated with lower WRQoL in this sample. However, comparisons with non‐nursing educator populations should be made cautiously because previous studies have often examined different outcomes and used different analytic models. For example, a study among teachers has linked workaholism with adverse organizational attitudes, such as organizational cynicism, rather than WRQoL (Helvaci and Başaran 2020), while studies among general workers have examined work–family conflict and broader mental health or well‐being outcomes (Andreassen 2014; Andersen et al. 2023; Daniel et al. 2022). Nevertheless, the present finding is broadly consistent with occupational literature showing that workaholism is associated with poorer health and well‐being, greater work–family conflict, higher job stress, and lower job satisfaction across worker groups (Andreassen 2014; Andersen et al. 2023; Clark et al. 2020; Daniel et al. 2022).

Specifically, educators who identified as workaholics reported significantly lower levels of WRQoL, highlighting how excessive work commitment can compromise personal well‐being (Clark et al. 2020). Notably, the “stress at work” dimension of QoL was directly linked to workaholism, suggesting that increased workaholic tendencies may heighten perceived stress in the academic environment. This aligns with prior studies showing that workaholism contributes to elevated occupational stress and emotional exhaustion (Andersen et al. 2023; Schaufeli, Taris, and Bakker 2009). Abou Hashish et al. (2024) found that workaholism disrupted work‐life balance among Saudi nursing educators, while Gillet et al. (2021) reported declines in family satisfaction and work performance among French nurses. Similarly, Ruiz‐Garcia et al. (2022) observed that Spanish emergency nurses experienced increased workaholism as a response to perceived stress. These findings raise concerns about the cumulative burden of academic and clinical responsibilities in nursing education. Prolonged stress may not only degrade educators' QoL but also impair their teaching performance and student outcomes (Opoku‐Danso et al. 2025). Institutions must urgently implement strategies that foster healthier work cultures, promote work‐life balance, and address the root causes of workaholic behaviour in academic settings.

The results demonstrated that workaholism was negatively associated with mindfulness among nursing educators, accounting for 17.10% of the variance (validating Hypothesis 2). This finding indicates that nursing educators who exhibit higher levels of workaholism are less likely to engage in mindful awareness and presence, which are crucial for emotional regulation and occupational resilience. Notably, there may be numerous factors (spirituality, mindfulness, resilience, social support) that could contribute to nursing educators' mindfulness that were not examined in this study. Similar studies confirm this finding (Aziz et al. 2021; Zheng et al. 2025). Among US workers, workaholism is negatively linked to mindfulness and negative affect; however, when mindfulness increased, it reduced the impacts of workaholism on negative affect (Aziz et al. 2021). For young Chinese employees, mindfulness was able to reduce work addiction tendencies (Zheng et al. 2025). Mindfulness is particularly important in high‐stress professions such as nursing education, where educators must juggle academic responsibilities, clinical demands, and mentoring roles (Prescott et al. 2024).

The negative association observed in this study supports prior findings indicating that workaholism is linked to cognitive rumination, poor emotional regulation, and a reduced capacity for moment‐to‐moment awareness (Andreassen et al. 2018; Spagnoli and Molinaro 2020). Workaholic educators may become so preoccupied with task completion and performance that they lose the psychological flexibility necessary for mindfulness. This erosion of mindfulness could, in turn, increase their vulnerability to stress, burnout, and diminished well‐being. Since mindfulness has been connected with lesser emotional exhaustion and greater work satisfaction in nursing contexts (Wu et al. 2021), these findings underscore the criticality of integrating mindfulness training into professional development programmes. Promoting mindfulness may serve as a buffer against the adverse psychological consequences of workaholism and enhance educators' capacity to cope with workplace demands.

The emerging model revealed a significant positive association between mindfulness and WRQoL among nursing educators (supporting Hypothesis 3). This finding suggests that individuals demonstrating higher levels of mindfulness are more likely to experience better well‐being in the workplace. Former studies empirically support this study finding (Knudsen et al. 2023; Lin et al. 2024). Mindfulness‐based programmes significantly reduced nurses' stress (Knudsen et al. 2023) and professional QoL (Lin et al. 2024). Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses reported that mindfulness‐based interventions protect nurses against burnout while enhancing resilience, sleep quality (Dou et al. 2025), and psychosocial and occupational well‐being (Liu et al. 2025). Mindfulness, characterized by non‐judgmental and impartial awareness of the present moment, enhances emotional regulation, reduces stress, and improves job satisfaction (Gkintoni et al. 2025; Kabat‐Zinn 2003).

In nursing education, where professionals face continuous academic, clinical, and emotional demands, mindfulness may be a protective factor supporting mental clarity, resilience, and a healthier work‐life balance (Berdida et al. 2023; Prescott et al. 2024). The present findings align with these observations, emphasizing the potential of mindfulness‐based interventions to enhance overall WRQoL. Institutions should consider incorporating mindfulness training into faculty development to foster well‐being and job sustainability.

Focusing on the emerging model, findings demonstrated that mindfulness statistically mediated the relationship between workaholism and WRQoL among nursing educators (substantiating Hypothesis 4). This result suggests that mindfulness may serve as a psychological shield, weakening the negative impact of workaholism on WRQoL. Individuals with workaholic tendencies often experience stress, emotional exhaustion, and reduced personal well‐being due to compulsive overwork (Andreassen et al. 2018; Clark et al. 2020). However, when mindfulness is present, it mitigates these adverse effects by fostering present‐moment awareness and emotional regulation. This finding aligns with previous research highlighting mindfulness as a protective element against the adverse impacts of nurses' workaholism, work–family conflict (Daniel et al. 2022), and enhancing nurses' work environment spirituality and work‐life balance (Lin et al. 2024).

These findings have relevance for mental health nursing because they position workaholism as more than a productivity or workload issue. Workaholic tendencies may reflect and reinforce psychological strain, impaired self‐regulation, rumination, and difficulty disengaging from work. These patterns can place nursing educators at risk of stress, burnout, and reduced occupational well‐being. Mental health nurses, particularly those involved in staff support, education, consultation‐liaison roles, occupational mental health, and organizational well‐being programmes, can help translate these findings into practice. Their contribution may include screening for work‐related distress, facilitating reflective groups, supporting mindfulness‐informed interventions, advising academic leaders on psychologically safe workload practices, and helping educators access appropriate mental health support when needed.

In this context, mindfulness may help nursing educators detach from compulsive work behaviours, reduce rumination, and better manage stress—ultimately enhancing their QoL. The mediating role observed supports the integration of mindfulness‐based strategies into faculty development programmes as a proactive approach to improving nursing educators' mental health and job satisfaction (Prescott et al. 2024). Institutions should invest in cultivating mindful work cultures that discourage workaholism and support emotional resilience and sustainable performance. These findings offer a compelling case for embedding mindfulness into organizational policies to promote long‐term well‐being in academic environments.

The model accounted for 46.60% of the total variance in nursing educators' WRQoL, highlighting the substantial influence of both workaholism and mindfulness. This result indicates that these two psychological constructs are key determinants of occupational well‐being in nursing education. While workaholism undermines WRQoL through stress and emotional exhaustion, mindfulness promotes resilience, emotional balance (Clark et al. 2020), spirituality, and stable work‐life status (Lin et al. 2024). The significant explanatory power of this model underscores the importance of addressing workaholism while simultaneously fostering mindfulness. Nursing institutions that employ nursing educators should prioritise mindfulness‐based interventions to enhance educators' mental well‐being and buffer the detrimental effects of excessive work engagement.

5.1. Limitations and Recommendations

While this investigation offers useful insights, several limitations should be noted. The observational, cross‐sectional design limits causal inference and prevents conclusions about temporal ordering among workaholism, mindfulness, and WRQoL. Therefore, although the SEM results identified a statistically significant indirect association through mindfulness, this pathway should be interpreted as statistical mediation rather than evidence of causal mediation. The use of consecutive and snowball sampling from four nursing colleges in Saudi Arabia also limits the generalisability of the findings. In addition, the substantial proportion of Filipino nursing educators in the sample reflects the multinational composition of nursing education in the study setting but may limit transferability to other countries, institutions, or educator populations. Although WRQoL was modelled as a latent multidimensional construct, the present study did not test separate mediation pathways for each WRQoL subscale. Future studies may examine subscale‐specific models to determine whether workaholism and mindfulness relate differently to specific WRQoL domains, such as Home–Work Interface or Stress at Work. The present study did not differentiate between specific sources of workaholism, such as teaching load, research expectations, clinical supervision, administrative responsibilities, accreditation activities, or student support. Future studies should examine these workload components separately to identify which institutional demands are most strongly associated with workaholic tendencies and WRQoL among nursing educators.

The reliance on self‐reported measures may introduce response biases, including overestimation, underestimation, and social desirability bias. Future research should consider longitudinal designs with multiple measurement points or experimental designs with controlled exposure to establish temporal sequencing and examine causality more rigorously. Future studies may also explore additional mediators or moderators, such as organizational support, workload, leadership, personality traits, resilience, or mental health support access. Employing probability sampling and expanding the sample to include more diverse cultural, institutional, and regional contexts would enhance the generalisability of the findings. It is also recommended that institutions in similar nursing education settings pilot structured mindfulness‐based programmes and evaluate their long‐term associations with faculty well‐being, work patterns, retention, and performance metrics. Considering these limitations, broad generalisation cannot be made; thus, cautious interpretation of the findings is warranted.

6. Conclusion

This study found that workaholism was associated with lower WRQoL among nursing educators in four Saudi nursing colleges, while mindfulness was associated with better WRQoL and statistically mediated the relationship between workaholism and WRQoL. These findings suggest that workaholism and mindfulness are important occupational mental health factors in nursing education. Although causal conclusions cannot be drawn from the cross‐sectional design and broad generalisation is limited by the non‐probability sample, the results support the need for institutional strategies in similar nursing education settings that address excessive work demands while strengthening personal and organisational resources. Mental health nursing can contribute to this agenda through early identification of occupational distress, mindfulness‐informed interventions, reflective practice, mental health literacy, and advocacy for psychologically safe academic workplaces. Promoting sustainable work practices among nursing educators may support faculty well‐being and the quality and continuity of nursing education.

6.1. Relevance for Mental Health Nursing Practice, Nursing Education, and Policymaking

The findings highlight workaholism as a potentially modifiable occupational mental health concern among nursing educators in Saudi nursing colleges. Mental health nurses and mental health nursing educators can contribute to early identification of work‐related distress, compulsive overwork, burnout risk, and reduced WRQoL. Their role may include supporting reflective practice, facilitating mindfulness‐informed group activities, promoting mental health literacy, and collaborating with academic leaders, occupational health services, and employee assistance programmes to develop psychologically safer work environments.

Because the statistically significant indirect association suggested that mindfulness was part of the pathway linking workaholism and WRQoL, interventions should be tailored to nursing educators' specific workaholism drivers rather than offered as generic wellness programmes. These drivers may include teaching overload, clinical supervision responsibilities, student support demands, research productivity expectations, accreditation preparation, committee work, and administrative duties. Mindfulness‐informed strategies should specifically target compulsive working patterns, difficulty disengaging from academic tasks, excessive after‐hours work, and blurred boundaries between academic and personal life. Institutions may consider brief workplace‐adapted strategies such as reflective debriefing after clinical teaching, short mindfulness practices during faculty development sessions, peer support groups focused on sustainable academic work habits, and workshops on boundary setting, recovery, self‐compassion, and recognition of compulsive overwork. Structured programmes such as Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction may be useful for some educators, but they should be adapted to fit academic calendars, clinical placement schedules, and faculty workload patterns.

Importantly, mindfulness‐informed strategies should not be used as a substitute for organizational change. Nursing colleges should also review workload allocation, protect time for teaching preparation and research, monitor overtime and after‐hours work, clarify role expectations, and develop mentoring systems that discourage overwork as a marker of professional commitment. These organizational strategies are relevant to the observed indirect pathway because they may reduce the work conditions that reinforce workaholic tendencies and create space for mindful awareness, recovery, and self‐regulation. Mental health check‐ins should not be limited to general well‐being assessment; they should include screening for occupational distress, compulsive overwork, poor recovery, reduced mindfulness, and burnout risk. At the policy level, educator well‐being indicators may be incorporated into quality assurance and faculty development systems. These strategies may support more sustainable academic work practices, improve faculty retention, and help preserve the quality and continuity of nursing education.

Author Contributions

Daniel Joseph E. Berdida: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

Funding

The author has nothing to report.

Ethics Statement

The Ethical Research Committee of North Private College of Nursing granted the ethics approval (Serial No.: NCN‐12012025‐24; Date Approved: 13/01/2025).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

File S1: STROBE Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross‐sectional studies.

INM-35-0-s001.docx (33.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the nursing staff from four settings across three regions in Saudi Arabia for their time and participation. I am also grateful to John Rey B. Macindo, BSN, RN, MPH, DIH, for his expertise in statistics. We also acknowledge the unparalleled support of our Dean, Dr. Noura Alhudaib, for her encouragement to conduct and publish research.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Abbasi, M. , Dehghan S. F., Madvari R. F., et al. 2019. “Interactive Effect of Background Variables and Workload Parameters on the Quality of Life Among Nurses Working in Highly Complex Hospital Units: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 13, no. 1: LC08–LC13. 10.7860/JCDR/2019/37929.12482. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abou Hashish, E. A. , Alsayed S. A., and Alnajjar H. A.. 2024. “Exploring Workaholism Determinants and Life Balance: A Mixed‐Method Study Among Academic Nurse Educators.” Journal of Professional Nursing 54: 234–244. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali Zakeri, M. A. , Ghaedi‐Heidari F., Khaloobagheri E., et al. 2022. “The Relationship Between Nurse's Professional Quality of Life, Mindfulness, and Hardiness: A Cross‐Sectional Study During the COVID‐19 Outbreak.” Frontiers in Psychology 13: 866038. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. American Association of Colleges of Nursing . 2024. “Hallmarks of the Professional Nursing Practice Environment.” https://www.aacnnursing.org/news‐data/position‐statements‐white‐papers/hallmarks‐of‐the‐professional‐nursing‐practice‐environment. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Andersen, F. B. , Djugum M. E. T., Sjåstad V. S., and Pallesen S.. 2023. “The Prevalence of Workaholism: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1252373. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1252373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Andreassen, C. S. , Pallesen S., and Torsheim T.. 2018. “Workaholism as a Mediator Between Work‐Related Stressors and Health Outcomes.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 1: 73. 10.3390/ijerph15010073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Andreassen, C. S. 2014. “Workaholism: An Overview and Current Status of the Research.” Journal of Behavioral Addictions 3, no. 1: 1–11. 10.1556/JBA.2.2013.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Aziz, S. , Bellows G., and Wuensch K.. 2021. “The Relationship Between Workaholism and Negative Affect: Mindfulness Matters!” International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 19, no. 5: 1605–1614. 10.1007/s11469-020-00249-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Berdida, D. J. E. , and Grande R. A. N.. 2023. “Academic Stress, COVID‐19 Anxiety, and Quality of Life Among Nursing Students: The Mediating Role of Resilience.” International Nursing Review 70, no. 1: 34–42. 10.1111/inr.12774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Berdida, D. J. E. , Lopez V., and Grande R. A. N.. 2023. “Nursing Students' Perceived Stress, Social Support, Self‐Efficacy, Resilience, Mindfulness and Psychological Well‐Being: A Structural Equation Model.” International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 32, no. 5: 1390–1404. 10.1111/inm.13179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Berdida, D. J. E. 2023. “Resilience and Academic Motivation's Mediation Effects in Nursing Students' Academic Stress and Self‐Directed Learning: A Multicenter Cross‐Sectional Study.” Nurse Education in Practice 69: 103639. 10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Billings, D. M. , and Halstead J. A.. 2020. Teaching in Nursing: A Guide for Faculty. 6th ed. Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, K. W. , and Ryan R. M.. 2003. “The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well‐Being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, no. 4: 822–848. 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Byrne, B. M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 2nd ed. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark, M. A. , Michel J. S., Zhdanova L. S., Pui S. Y., and Baltes B. B.. 2020. “All Work and no Play? A Meta‐Analytic Examination of the Correlates and Outcomes of Workaholism.” Journal of Management 46, no. 6: 1106–1136. 10.1177/0149206319893610. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  17. Daniel, C. , Gentina E., and Mesmer‐Magnus J.. 2022. “Mindfulness Buffers the Deleterious Effects of Workaholism for Work‐Family Conflict.” Social Science & Medicine 306: 115118. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Daniel, W. W. , and Cross C. L.. 2018. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences. 11th ed. Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  19. Demerouti, E. , Bakker A. B., Nachreiner F., and Schaufeli W. B.. 2001. “The Job Demands‐Resources Model of Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 3: 499–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dopolani, F. N. , Arefi M. F., Akhlaghi Pirposhteh E., et al. 2022. “Investigation of Occupational Fatigue and Safety Climate Among Nurses Using the Structural Equation Model.” Work (Reading, Mass.) 72, no. 3: 1129–1139. 10.3233/WOR-213648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dou, J. , Lian Y., Lin L., Asmuri S. N. B., Wang P., and Rajen Durai R. A.. 2025. “Effectiveness of Mindfulness‐Based Interventions on Burnout, Resilience and Sleep Quality Among Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” BMC Nursing 24, no. 1: 739. 10.1186/s12912-025-03101-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Easton, S. , and Van Laar D.. 2018. User Manual for the Work‐Related Quality of Life (WRQoL) Scale: A Measure of Quality of Working Life. 2nd ed. University of Portsmouth. 10.17029/EASTON2018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Farber, J. , Payton C., Dorney P., and Colancecco E.. 2023. “Work‐Life Balance and Professional Quality of Life Among Nurse Faculty During the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Journal of Professional Nursing 46: 92–101. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fathi, N. , Askari A., Hossinpour R., et al. 2024. “Investigating the Association of Mental Workload, Occupational Fatigue and Job Stress in Emergency Nurses in Iran.” Health in Emergencies and Disasters Quarterly 9, no. 4: 295–302. 10.32598/hdq.9.4.527.2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gillet, N. , Austin S., Fernet C., et al. 2021. “Workaholism, Presenteeism, Work‐Family Conflicts and Personal and Work Outcomes: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 30, no. 19–20: 2842–2853. 10.1111/jocn.15791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gkintoni, E. , Vassilopoulos S. P., and Nikolaou G.. 2025. “Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of Neurocognitive Outcomes and Applications for Mental Health and Well‐Being.” Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 5: 1703. 10.3390/jcm14051703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Helvaci, A. M. , and Başaran O.. 2020. “The Relationship Between Workaholism Levels of Teachers and Organizational Cynicism.” European Journal of Education Studies 7, no. 5: 94–118. [Google Scholar]
  28. Huang, M. F. , Courtney M., Edwards H., and McDowell J.. 2010. “Factors That Affect Health Outcomes in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 47: 542–549. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. International Council of Nurses . 2023. Recover to Rebuild: Investing in the Nursing Workforce for Health System Effectiveness. International Council of Nurses. https://www.icn.ch/system/files/2023‐03/ICN_Recover‐to‐Rebuild_report_EN.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kabat‐Zinn, J. 2003. “Mindfulness‐Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 10, no. 2: 144–156. 10.1093/clipsy.bpg016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kline, R. B. 2023. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford publications. [Google Scholar]
  32. Knudsen, R. K. , Ammentorp J., Storkholm M. H., Skovbjerg S., Tousig C. G., and Timmermann C.. 2023. “The Influence of Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction on the Work Life of Healthcare Professionals ‐ A Qualitative Study.” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 53: 101805. 10.1016/j.ctcp.2023.101805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Konte, A. G. 2020. “Mindfulness and Its Impacts on Managers: A Pilot Study.” Human Systems Management. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lavoie‐Tremblay, M. , Sanzone L., Aubé T., and Paquet M.. 2022. “Sources of Stress and Coping Strategies Among Undergraduate Nursing Students Across All Years.” Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 54, no. 3: 261–271. 10.1177/08445621211028076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lin, Y. , Jiang C., Pan Y., and Xu Z.. 2024. “The Impact of Mindfulness on Nurses' Perceived Professional Benefits: The Mediating Roles of Workplace Spirituality and Work‐Life Balance.” Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1346326. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1346326. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, M. , Guo Y., Bai J., et al. 2025. “Effectiveness of Mindfulness‐Based Interventions on Psychosocial Well‐Being and Occupational‐Related Outcomes Among Nurses in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Australian Critical Care 38, no. 4: 101255. 10.1016/j.aucc.2025.101255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nieminen, P. 2022. “Application of Standardized Regression Coefficient in Meta‐Analysis.” BioMedInformatics 2, no. 3: 434–458. 10.3390/biomedinformatics2030028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Opoku‐Danso, R. , Commey I. T., Agyare D. F., Owusu G., Amoadu M., and Abraham S. A.. 2025. “Quality Faculty‐Nursing Students' Relationship: A Systematic Review of Facilitators, Barriers, and Impact on Students.” BMC Nursing 24, no. 1: 925. 10.1186/s12912-025-03580-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pega, F. , Náfrádi B., Momen N. C., et al. 2021. “Global, Regional, and National Burdens of Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke Attributable to Exposure to Long Working Hours for 194 Countries, 2000–2016: A Systematic Analysis From the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work‐Related Burden of Disease and Injury.” Environment International 154: 106595. 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Poku, C. A. , Bayuo J., Mensah E., and Bam V.. 2023. “Quality of Work‐Life and Coping Strategies of Nurse Educators and Clinicians in COVID‐19: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” Nursing Open 10: 4336–4345. 10.1002/nop2.1676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Poursadeqiyan, M. , Arefi M. F., Khaleghi S., et al. 2020. “Investigation of the Relationship Between the Safety Climate and Occupational Fatigue Among the Nurses of Educational Hospitals in Zabol.” Journal of Education Health Promotion 9: 238. 10.4103/jehp.jehp_309_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Prescott, S. , Watson A., Young C. D., et al. 2024. “A Descriptive Study on Holistic Nursing Education: Student Perspectives on Integrating Mindfulness, Spirituality, and Professionalism.” Nurse Education Today 143: 106379. 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ruiz‐Garcia, P. , Castanheira A. M., Borges E., and Mosteiro‐Diaz M.. 2022. “Workaholism and Work‐Family Interaction Among Emergency and Critical Care Nurses.” Intensive & Critical Care Nursing 72: 103240. 10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Schaufeli, W. B. , Shimazu A., and Taris T. W.. 2009. “Being Driven to Work Excessively Hard: The Evaluation of a Two‐Factor Measure of Workaholism in The Netherlands and Japan.” Cross‐Cultural Research 43, no. 4: 320–348. 10.1177/1069397109337239. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaufeli, W. B. , Taris T. W., and Bakker A. B.. 2009. “It Takes Two to Tango: Workaholism Is Working Excessively and Working Compulsively.” In The Long Work Hours Culture: Causes, Consequences and Choices, edited by Burke R. J. and Cooper C. L., 203–226. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000001010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Silarova, B. , Brookes N., Palmer S., Towers M., and Hussein S.. 2022. “Understanding and Measuring the Work‐Related Quality of Life Among Those Working in Adult Social Care: A Scoping Review.” Health & Social Care in the Community 30, no. 5: 1637–1664. 10.1111/hsc.13718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Spagnoli, P. , and Molinaro D.. 2020. “Negative (Workaholic) Emotions and Emotional Exhaustion: Might Job Autonomy Have Played a Strategic Role in Workers With Responsibility During the Covid‐19 Crisis Lockdown?” Behavioral Science 10, no. 12: 192. 10.3390/bs10120192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Taris, T. W. , and de Jonge J.. 2024. “Workaholism: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 11: 113–138. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych111821-035514. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Taris, T. W. 2022. “Workplace Engagement and Motivation.” Advances in Motivation Science 10: 179–213. 10.1016/bs.adms.2022.11.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vatani, J. , Arami M., Khanikosarkhizi Z., et al. 2021. “Safety Climate and Related Factors in Rehabilitation Nurses of Hospitals in Iran.” Work (Reading, Mass.) 68, no. 1: 189–196. 10.3233/WOR-203368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. World Health Organization . 2021. Long Working Hours Increasing Deaths From Heart Disease and Stroke: WHO, ILO. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/17‐05‐2021‐long‐working‐hours‐increasing‐deaths‐from‐heart‐disease‐and‐stroke‐who‐ilo. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wu, X. , Hayter M., Lee A. J., and Zhang Y.. 2021. “Nurses' Experiences of the Effects of Mindfulness Training: A Narrative Review and Qualitative Meta‐Synthesis.” Nurse Education Today 100: 104830. 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zheng, G. , Sheng J., Wang H., and Xu Z.. 2025. “Mindfulness and Work Addiction Among Young Employees: The Mediating Roles of Cognitive Reappraisal and Perfectionism.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 16: 1631792. 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1631792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

File S1: STROBE Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross‐sectional studies.

INM-35-0-s001.docx (33.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from International Journal of Mental Health Nursing are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES