Thread by @DrPetra, I've had lots of folk get in touch worried about mandatory wellbeing [...]

I've had lots of folk get in touch worried about mandatory wellbeing activities in schools, colleges and unis.
To clarify,pushing people to do wellbeing activities as decided by an employer/educator is wrong.
As are hosting wellbeing activities without changing underlying harms

If you want to offer wellbeing activities these should only be after you attend to any causes of distress and:
- delivered at the request of others
- be varied, accessible and optional
- allow people to choose their own activities (including doing absolutely nothing if desired)

Pushing people to 'be well', including digital surveillance that wellbeing activities have been completed, will not help anyone.

Also mindfulness is not synonymous with wellbeing and may be unpleasant or harmful for some people, so should not be set as a compulsory standard.

Be aware adults who're already struggling at work may experience being forced to do a wellbeing activity while nothing changes in their work/study spaces as oppressive and offensive. They may engage less or resist - and understandably so.

Also be aware children and young people being pushed to mandatory wellbeing activities, no matter how well intentioned, may feel less able to question or resist but may equally be harmed by pushing to 'be well' by your standards. Wellness without consultation or dignity = harm.

Many suggestions for 'wellness' 'self-care' 'resilience' or 'recovery' are majorly ableist and classist. Making suggestions (mandatory or otherwise) that incur costs or require equipment, energy and space are liable to be ignored or cause anxiety rather than prevent it.

If your school, college, university or other workplace is making wellness mandatory without making it accessible, inclusive or supportive feel free to use this thread to push back.

You will never be made well by things that don't suit your needs which others impose upon you.

It's noteworthy that we're currently overwhelmed with checklists, online classes, websites, apps, books and other stuff sharing wellness and self-care messages, but the underlying reasons for our distress haven't been attended to. We should question why that is. It's important.

Does this mean you shouldn't bother trying to help people during the pandemic? No! You should. But the nature of your help needs critical attention. If folk are distressed because of overwork or endless screen time then change *that* before you offer a relaxation video or similar

If you want to offer wellbeing support, once you've addressed the underlying causes of anxiety/concern you could
- collate a range of diverse and accessible care resources
- signpost to sources of support
- reduce workload/expectations
- offer opt-in social time
- let people be

If you work in a school, college or uni and plan on offering self-care, wellbeing or wellness sessions (e.g. webinars,videos,courses,speakers etc) ask yourself why? Who's asked for this? Why would we be offering it? Are we the best people to do so? Could we offer something else?

It's certainly true children, young people, parents and staff are struggling for all kinds of reasons but is a mental health/wellbeing intervention the thing that will fix it? Take some time to explore this. Just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right.

If you are going to offer any kind of intervention or assistance ask yourself 'who does this bring in? who does it leave out? who might it help? who might it harm?' and note particularly entry points, accessibility, safety, dignity and inclusivity. Pilot prior to roll out.

Before you pay for any kind of service or even endorse the *many* free tools, webinars and other resources out there think about who in your educational community you're aiming them at - will they be suitable? Might they exclude or even harm?

Linking to a webinar, course, book etc looks like you're doing something. As does providing regular 'wellbeing updates' but do people find them useful? Do they engage with them? Did they ask for them? Are they so generic as to feel excluding, patronising or pointless?

If you want to help people feel better then find out what it is they're struggling with and fix those things. Remember 'impact' doesn't mean 'pass on a webinar link'. It doesn't mean you've achieved anything unless you check, test, revise, review, engage, critique and interrogate

I know schools, colleges and unis are under pressure to 'do something' and passing on resources is 'a something'. But if you've not checked if it's wanted, appropriate or useful it's not doing anything (except, perhaps, saving you time). It lets those underlying causes get missed

And I feel it's important to say that a large proportion of support resources, webinars, tools and books (free or paid for) are *really poor*. They reinforce harmful, ableist, classist, simplistic ideas that don't make any difference but sound exciting, medical, sciencey etc.

If you aren't sure how to evaluate the materials you're sending out or suggesting folk use - particularly if you're trying to help those struggling with mental distress - then that's a sign you shouldn't be signposting to said resources until you've taken advice/asked others.

Typically schools, colleges and unis are swayed by wellbeing tools and training that
- mention science/psychology/neurology/health ('neuro' seems to be the word of the moment)
- are run/fronted by a white man
- have lots of whizzy graphics/clipart/bright colours/masses of text

- use words like 'resilience' 'strength' 'growth mindset' 'persistence' 'goals' 'targets' 'perseverance' 'screen addiction'
- feature images of either B+W 'headclutching' images or colour pics of leaping,happy,white kids
- lots of figures (particularly %) without context/citation

That's not to say all these things are wrong, but you should ideally use resources/support that name and tackle underlying causes of mental distress, providing a varied range of approaches to explain and address it. Be wary of those invoking science/health who're not qualified

btw I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about the above, nor is it suggesting we can’t give or accept care during particularly challenging times, but you’d be surprised to learn it makes some people really angry and defensive. It’s useful to explore why that may be

I've been asked how people can check if wellness/self-care resources and courses are any good? A key way is to ask for the syllabus. If it's only about you (e.g. "healthy habits,avoiding perfectionism,being resilient)" but *doesn't* ask about what's causing your stress then avoid

Many/most courses or activities for wellbeing and mental health operate as if you just woke up worried one day and if you can address your behaviour you'll be fine, rather than noting there are systems in and outside your workplace that will be making you anxious or unwell.

Popular things on syllabi for wellbeing courses/events will require you to alter your behaviour in response to things that are making you unhappy/unwell, but not in a critical way and not in a way that helps you challenge, reduce or prevent what is the cause of your problems.

So be wary if you're asked to 'adjust your mindset' 'think happy' or 'be resilient'. This is holding you responsible for things outside your control that are unsafe or unfair. Implying you're a perfectionist rather than you're exploited, for example, is part of this problem.

I've seen so many courses and talks recently that frame things as 'we're more stressed than ever! mentions some %, notes symptoms' and then on to how *you* might change *yourself* or distract with mindfulness. No mention of precarity, bullying,overwork,competition,poor management

People don't necessarily complain about wellbeing and self-care resources they're given because a. they may not know there are alternatives and b. they may assume what they've been given is correct. Also if the work/study environment is toxic they won't feel safe to say anything

Another

to notice with wellbeing support/training is anything that's telling you to be less anxious because otherwise you'll make others around you miserable, or that the main reason for wellbeing in the workplace is "happier people are more productive workers".

Also I'm wary of any wellbeing/self-care programmes that don't take a critical take on positive psychology (or any key messages) and where 'evidence' is 'Prof so and so from X university says'. It doesn't help anyone interrogate what a presenter's advocating or give study source

If someone's providing wellbeing or mental health training/talks to your school/college/university it's a good idea to ask them where they get their evidence from, what evidence means to them, and how they've critiqued it and applied it to *your specific situation*.

You'd think unis, colleges, schools and healthcare settings would be suspicious of evidence that's "I'm telling you what Prof so-and-so said in a Ted Talk" but many accept this and repeat it as valid information on wellbeing/mental health/self-care.

Also look out for buzzwords like hormones (and naming hormones), neurological/neuro, instinct, flight/fight, muscle memory, immune system, 'part of the brain' etc. Where physiology is mentioned and symptoms listed but nothing is noted about *why* your body is reacting this way.

It's good to note physiological and psychological reactions do happen in relation to stressful situations, but is worrying if it's implied you can relax, meditate, distract or think yourself out of risky, dangerous, oppressive or exploitative situations.

Be wary of advice that tells you if you are stressed you should make the daily effort to change things but that energy isn't directed towards addressing underlying harms, inequalities or dangers and is all about finding things to distract you from it (e.g. with exercise, baking)

Another thing to check with training/speakers/resources is they deliver what people in your organisation really need. Lots of speakers/training focus on people's own stories which can be inspiring/uplifting/reassuring but these alone don't challenge underlying causes of distress

Also many of these stories are narrow and similar in terms of who tells them and what they talk about. This may leave many in your organisation feeling left out, patronised or pathologised. If you're after stories, seek a variety and tailor to your audience/organisation.

Be careful, also, around trainers/resources who not only share their stories but encourage others to disclose. Disclosure can be very powerful and may work positively or be extremely damaging. Especially if no follow up care is available or it adds/leads to bullying.

Stories are powerful, wonderful things and if you're from an area/discipline/industry that doesn't routinely use them they'll impact even more. But people having emotive reactions to someone's story isn't the same as them having their rights, care needs and issues attended to.

Latest Threads Unrolled: