Using Design Thinking to Develop a Capacity-Building Toolkit of Healthy Digital Relations in Schools

Abstract

This article illustrates how design thinking can structure the development process of a practical toolkit for schools to address cyber mistreatment from pupils, parents, and other parties as a workplace issue. The process included an exploratory phase to identify gaps in schools’ understanding and handling, followed by iterative generative and evaluative phases. Based on the Psychosocial Safety Climate framework, necessary organizational capacities were defined. Prototypes of toolkit components, including vignette videos for discussions among staff, a text guide for policy and infrastructure development, and an informative video, were refined through stakeholder feedback. A summative evaluation confirmed the usefulness of these resources for engaging staff and fostering discussions on cyber mistreatment. A themed webpage was created for free access to the toolkit. This study contributes to existing debates on how academic research can impact practice by emphasizing the usefulness of design thinking in creating innovative, user-centered solutions for capacity development.

Introduction

Over the last 50 years, occupational health research has made considerable advancements in identifying workplace hazards and their effects on worker well-being (Burdorf & Rugulies, 2023). However, although many studies outline risks and preventive measures, translating occupational safety and health (OSH) research into actionable strategies for effectively enhancing workers’ safety and health remains challenging (Burdorf, 2024; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 20252023).

Ensuring that research advances academic knowledge and creates a meaningful, lasting impact in a broader community requires more than merely distributing popular scientific communication. It involves understanding who can benefit from the research and how, as well as developing strategies and actions to effectively translate research findings into practical applications. As part of a research project examining the exposure of teachers and school principals to cyber mistreatment, we had the explicit ambition to translate our research into actionable strategies to improve the digital work environment for educational staff in Sweden. By supporting capacity development in schools as a public health strategy, we wanted to empower them to create healthier and safer working environments, reduce occupational risks related to cyber mistreatment from service users, and improve the overall health outcomes of the educational workforce. This article aims to document and discuss how design thinking, as a collaborative approach, can allow for the translation of research findings into a toolkit to impact workplace practices for handling cyber mistreatment, an emerging work environment hazard.

The Emerging Issue of Cyber Mistreatment

Digitalization has opened new avenues to invigorate teaching methods in the educational sector (Mårell-Olsson & Bergström, 2018). Digital platforms and email play a significant role in communication, often replacing direct conversations between school and home (Bordalba & Bochaca, 2019; Thompson, 2008). Parental engagement is of great importance for pupil learning and achievements (Finn, 1998; Houri et al., 2019), and direct communication between teachers and parents can strengthen such engagement by building trust, even via digital channels (Houri et al., 2019). While adopting digital technologies presents opportunities for enhancing learning and efficient communication, it can also have negative consequences, such as cyber mistreatment. Cyber mistreatment can be defined as

any form of online behaviour directed by one or more persons within or outside a work organization with the goal, or with the consequence, of harming one or more other in the workplace (or the entire organization) in ways the intended targets are motivated to avoid. (Cowen Forssell et al., 2024)

Hence, the advantages of digitalization can be challenging to realize without negative consequences for staff.

The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work states that digitalization and handling demanding customers, clients, and pupils are among Europe's most emerging workplace risks (EU-OSHA, 2025). In the educational sector, cyber mistreatment arises in educational workers’ interactions with learners and parents (Cox et al., 2017). Experiencing such negative behaviors can lead to psychological distress and exhaustion with detrimental consequences for the individual and the workplace (Oksanen et al., 2020). This includes mental strain (Farley et al., 2015), diminished psychological health (Ford, 2013), and increased counterproductive work behaviors (Richard et al., 2020). The evolving risk of cyber mistreatment in its many forms leads to a pressing need for effective interventions, as argued by Marcum and Choi (2024).

Cyber mistreatment from service users (i.e., learners, parents, clients, or patients) is a relatively new phenomenon that has not been directly addressed in work environment regulations in Sweden or at a European level. However, the legislative framework indirectly covers such aggressions as they constitute a work environmental risk. Accordingly, employers are obliged to include cyber mistreatment in systematic OSH management to promote health and prevent occupational illness of employees. A problem, however, is that risk assessments are not always followed up with adequate actions to address the issues identified in the workplace. Only half of the organizations in Europe that deal with customers, patients, or learners have a procedure to deal with threats, abuse, or assaults by service users (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2023). The main reasons for this gap between legislation and implementation of preventive measures in workplaces are the complexity of psychosocial risks and regulations related to such measures, combined with a lack of awareness and expertise in organizations (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2023). Thus, there is a need to develop organizational capacity to better manage these new risks in the workplace.

Research on Capacity Development and Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC)

The United Nations Development Group regards capacity development as a primary objective in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Capacity is defined as “the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” and capacity development as “the process whereby people, organizations, and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt, and maintain capacity over time in order to achieve development results” (United Nations Development Group, 2017, p. 5).

In an organizational context, capacity development focuses on enhancing the ability to manage and achieve goals effectively. Rugulies et al. (2023) advocate for promoting capacity building and providing guidance on how to create and sustain a mentally healthy work environment at all levels of the organization in contrast to the current emphasis on individual-focused interventions. A literature review by DeCorby-Watson et al. (2018) found that organizational capacity-building interventions can potentially improve public health (e.g., through enhanced knowledge and expertise, behavioral alterations, and improved system-level capacity). Supporting organizations to develop their capacity to navigate challenges regarding digital communication with service users is a relevant preventive strategy aligned with the UN goals for promoting healthy lives (Goal 3) and decent work for all (Goal 8).

The PSC theory explicitly addresses the organizational aspects of a psychologically healthy workplace and offers a practical approach to achieve this (Bailey & Dollard, 2014). The PSC of an organization refers to workers’ shared perceptions regarding “policies, practices, and procedures for the protection of worker psychosocial health and safety” (Dollard & Bakker, 2010, p. 579). More specifically, PSC reflects how much the senior management of an organization prioritizes mental well-being compared to productivity or performance outcomes, thus also indicating workplace culture. Dollard et al. (2019) argue that political, economic, and social determinants influence PSC, which, in turn, impacts work conditions and social relations that are decisive for occupational health. PSC has repeatedly been shown to predict motivational and health-related outcomes such as work engagement, stress, and exhaustion (e.g., Juutinen et al., 2023; Loh et al., 2020; Yulita et al., 2022). Furthermore, PSC is closely related to compliance with work environment legislation (Berthelsen et al., 2020) and can, thus, be seen as an upstream causal factor that can be targeted for health promotion. Enhancing management commitment to stress prevention, organizational communication about psychological health issues, and participatory practices can change the PSC of an organization over time (Dollard & Bailey, 2021). This approach also aligns with the principles of value-based organizational interventions, emphasizing the importance of tailoring interventions to fit specific organizational contexts and supporting a cultural change by prioritizing transparent communication, fairness, and employee well-being (Pereira et al., 2024).

Design Process

While we, from the beginning, had a clear vision of supporting organizations in developing capacities by providing concrete tools, we had yet to determine how to accomplish this. As we wanted a goal-oriented, iterative, and user-centered structure to develop a practical set of tools, we chose to utilize design thinking (Hanington, 2007; Micheli et al., 2019; Pande & Bharathi, 2020; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). It is a valuable approach that has received significant attention for its capacity to promote innovation and address problems across different fields (Pande & Bharathi, 2020). It combines analytical and creative processes, encouraging experimentation, prototyping, feedback collection, and redesign (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). Like action research, design thinking emphasizes collaboration with stakeholders and uses iterative processes of reflection and action with continuous feedback. In line with Shani and Coghlan (2021), we believe that one of the core values of such a collaborative process is to generate actionable knowledge while also creating knowledge on how organizations change. Since design thinking tends to be artifact-based and aims at developing tangible design outputs to solve problems, this approach aligns well with our ambitions to seek long-lasting organizational change that is sustainable beyond the involvement of the researcher—an aspect previously identified as a significant challenge in collaborative organizational research (e.g., Mohrman et al., 2008; Shani & Coghlan, 2021).

The research and development focuses were integrated from the beginning of the overall project to achieve synergy throughout the process. For example, interviews were used to collect research data, which were thoroughly analyzed through various theoretical lenses to understand the nature of the phenomenon and were scientifically published. In addition, the interviews contributed to a cocreation process engaging key stakeholders, guiding and evaluating our efforts to develop a toolkit to facilitate organizational change. The current article focuses on this latter process and is structured through exploratory, generative, and evaluative sequences of research and design, in line with a model from generative design research (Hanington, 2007). Figure 1 shows an overview of the toolkit development process, with the design elements above and central evaluation activities under the timeline.

Figure 1.

Overview of Activities for Developing the Toolkit in the Three Interconnected Development Phases.

The Exploratory Phase

A fundamental principle of design thinking is to take offset in a deep understanding of user needs and address these. This requires cultivating empathy and engaging with the intended audience to create meaningful and effective solutions (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). Collaborating with key stakeholders has also been highlighted as essential for designing and evaluating workplace interventions to improve their implementation in practice (Frank et al., 2023). The overall strategy was to optimize the likelihood that the toolkit would be used by involving key actors in its design and establishing ownership among relevant stakeholders early in the process.

During the exploratory phase of our research project, one of the initial steps was to compile an overview of existing workplace interventions and literature related to cyber mistreatment by service users. Shortly after, an interview study was initiated to enhance the understanding of cyber mistreatment in the educational sector and its current management as a psychosocial work risk. We interviewed 31 teachers and principals from eight schools about their experiences with cyber mistreatment from service users and how this issue is currently addressed. Additionally, the interviews aimed to clarify how cyber mistreatment was expressed, on which digital channels it occurred, who the instigator was, and what potential motives could be identified.

Insights from the Field

Based on the research conducted in the exploratory phase, three interlinked expressions of cyber mistreatment were identified: (1) aggressions occurring in email communication with parents, (2) teachers being filmed in their professional role with a risk of the video being shared online, and (3) inappropriate comments about the school on social media, sometimes including the teachers and principals names (a complete analysis and detailed findings are reported separately; Cowen Forssell et al., 2024). The research findings revealed that work-related cyber mistreatment in schools is a highly complex phenomenon. Although a cohesive problem, cyber mistreatment differs regarding platforms used, involved actors, and potential motives. For example, we interpret email aggressions as initiated negotiating situations where parents use electronic communication to position themselves in such processes. Filming in the classroom, on the other hand, involved learners driven by motives of increasing their social status among peers. Exposure on social media was distinguished from the other two forms by targeting not only the individuals but also the school's reputation. It even included members of the public who had a loose connection to the school.

Regardless of how cyber mistreatment was expressed, responses by the teachers and principals were similar in nature and involved mainly reactive strategies at the individual level (e.g., postponing the reaction to an aggressive email or setting personal boundaries on availability to limit exposure). Proactive organizational strategies were limited, and even those promoting positive relationships were mainly initiated by the individual staff members. In summary, the exploratory phase unequivocally highlighted the necessity to enhance schools’ capabilities to address cyber mistreatment from service users. While the ultimate responsibility for the work environment rests with the employer (municipal council or education provider), the tasks and responsibilities related to the work environment are, in practice, delegated to school principals, who conduct psychosocial risk management in collaboration with the staff and their representatives. Yet, a report from the Swedish Work Environment Authority (2025) points out that three out of four schools inspected in 2023–2024 failed to prevent threats and violence. In line with our findings, the report stresses that to execute the tasks delegated, principals and staff must be provided with sufficient conditions, such as authority, resources, and knowledge. Hence, three primary groups were identified for capacity development: school principals, OSH representatives, and teaching staff.

The Generative and Evaluative Iterative Phases

Choice of a Theoretical Framework for Capacity Development and How It Relates to the Toolkit Components

Determining the mechanisms, role players, and purposes of capacity development initiatives is crucial for success (Bergeron et al., 2017; DeCorby-Watson et al., 2018). During the exploratory phase, it became evident that schools lacked the necessary structures, routines, and knowledge to manage this novel hazard. Implementing regulations across Europe has been challenging, especially concerning psychosocial factors (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2023). A systematic review highlighted three major barriers to effective OSH management: high implementation costs, challenges with employee engagement, and a lack of commitment from management (da Silva & Amaral, 2019). Correspondingly, the most important factors for successful OSH implementation include support from senior management, enhanced communication, and the encouragement of employee commitment and participation in OSH initiatives (da Silva & Amaral, 2019). This convinced us of the relevance of using the PSC theoretical framework for capacity development to help implement mandatory regulations in workplaces. Based on the identified needs and target groups, we expanded upon the PSC principles to establish ways to effectively support schools in complying with the required regulatory guidelines. The idea was to bolster knowledge of cyber mistreatment to facilitate communication among all three identified groups and foster participation. We wanted to achieve this by underlining their legislative responsibilities and giving concrete, practical input to a process that could lead to developing local solutions for policies, structures, and routines for preventing and handling incidents.

Figure 2 illustrates a structured framework for translating the theoretical foundations of PSC into concrete, practical actions that schools can implement to address the issue of cyber mistreatment from service users. Central to the figure is the recognition that enhancing a school's capacity to prevent and respond to cyber mistreatment requires strategic alignment between theoretical understanding, identified organizational needs, and the development of targeted tools.

Figure 2.

Structured Framework for Translating the Theoretical Foundations of PSC.

The two key PSC dimensions, management priority and commitment, highlight the need for active leadership involvement in fostering a safe and respectful work environment. Correspondingly, the dimensions participation and communication stress the value of inclusive dialogue and open communication channels among all staff members. These theoretical inputs served as a lens for identifying areas where schools typically lack sufficient infrastructure, knowledge, or processes to address cyber mistreatment effectively, leading to four specific capacity development needs within the school organization.

For management to prioritize and commit to addressing cyber mistreatment, they need a strong understanding of their legal obligations and the support required for developing and implementing policies, procedures, and infrastructure to ensure accountability and a prompt response to such risks. A text guide and a discussion video were created to help in building these capacities and promote a deeper understanding of the phenomenon necessary for guiding a process with all staff. These resources enable principals and health and safety representatives to facilitate meaningful discussions with staff, establish the essential infrastructure, and develop relevant policies and procedures tailored to their specific context. Open communication and participation among all school staff are key to addressing issues early and constructively. Three vignette videos showcasing the identified expressions of cyber mistreatment in schools were developed to support schools in this effort. These videos and reflection points aim to initiate a participatory process in schools, fostering dialogue about cyber mistreatment and ways to address it, creating a common ground for collaboration.

This structured approach ensures that PSC's theoretical insights are not left at the abstract level but are used to guide real, actionable change within the school system. By aligning leadership engagement, staff participation, and tool development, the toolbox supports a whole school strategy for improving psychosocial safety, building organizational resilience, and preventing cyber mistreatment.

Design Process Leading to the Toolkit

An important next step in design thinking is idea generation, developing a prototype of possible solutions, and receiving feedback for further development and testing (Micheli et al., 2019; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). During the generative phase, a formative evaluation with input from several stakeholder groups and peers was used to develop and refine the toolkit. In the following, we will present more details regarding the development of each toolkit component.

The Vignette Videos

Insights gathered from individual interviews with educational staff led us to develop three written hypothetical case stories (vignettes) illustrating cyber mistreatment, incorporating narrative twists to enhance engagement. These written vignettes underwent refinement through a two-step feedback process. Initially, research colleagues reviewed them, providing input on comprehension and narrative flow, prompting corresponding adjustments. The revised vignette narratives were evaluated through separate focus group interviews with school principals, parents, and learners to incorporate external perspectives. Participants across the three focus groups affirmed the significance of the three depicted issues: aggressive emails, classroom filming, and harmful social media exposure. Notably, during the focus group with learners, they spontaneously began discussing a real-life situation that mirrored the vignette's themes, even before it was presented. The focus group discussions were also used to pinpoint the most compelling questions to include in the videos to spark meaningful discussions. This iterative process allowed for evaluating and fine-tuning the vignettes to make them as authentic and pertinent to the primary audiences as conceivable before their final transformation into short (3–6 min) video narratives.

Next, the written content for each vignette was transformed into three short (3–6 min) videos that illustrated the identified expressions and issues of cyber mistreatment. This transition from text to video was conducted in close collaboration with the university's media production expert, ensuring a thoughtful visual plan for each scene. The expert guided the creation of a visual plan that detailed each scene, integrated emotions, and included reflection-based questions to foster and guide the viewers to more profound discussions. The videos needed to convey meaning through distinct objects and visual cues to match how the written version conveyed relevant information. For example, in the email scenario, the teacher's role was indicated by a calendar from the teachers’ labor union, and the mother character was portrayed in her office with a child's drawing stating “world's best mom” displayed on the wall. The initial versions of the vignette videos were shared with university research fellows for feedback. Their insights informed refinements in editing, pacing, and discussion prompts. Additional explanatory elements, such as subtitles (e.g., “The next day…”), were incorporated to enhance narrative clarity and character presentation.

The Text Guide

The text guide addressed the findings generated by the interviews and focus groups as a point of departure, together with research on PSC and capacity building for healthy workplaces. Corresponding to the written vignettes, the formative evaluation approach entailed continuous feedback and dialogue with stakeholders and peers about its content, form, and usability. Legislative interpretations were also reviewed. This iterative process led to improvements in the text guide's overall structure, language, and headings. In terms of content, the interpretation of legislation was adjusted with the support of representatives from a central authority, and brief sections with more practical advice were added.

The Conversation Video

The development of the conversation video followed a similar iterative process as described for the other two components. Formats for providing more nuanced information and reflections to school leaders and OSH representatives were considered. Our initial idea was a video-recorded lecture to create awareness of facts and issues. However, advice from the media production expert led to the format of a filmed conversation between two researchers for more engaging information transfer. Thorough preparation of the discussion topics and messages for delivery in the video took place in the weeks before filming. The preparation consisted of meetings with the research group, initial discussions, and conversation between the two discussants before finalizing a written agenda for the video. Colleagues reviewed an almost final version of the discussion video, providing feedback on its length and proposing its division into shorter chapters. Taking their suggestions into account, the video was edited for brevity. Although attempts were made to divide it into sections, no satisfactory outcome was achieved. Instead, time markers with headings were incorporated to signal topic shifts. Further, the option of listening to the conversation as a podcast was added.

Final Evaluation and Adjustment of the Toolkit

Before releasing the toolkit, we emailed a convenience sample of eight schools and several stakeholders, including central labor unions and municipal human ressources (HR) staff. Our focus was on participants from the exploratory and generative phases, as well as individuals who were not involved in the development process. In total, 22 participants responded to the questionnaire. Of these, 12 respondents came from the main priority groups (three school principals and nine teachers), and 10 were from other groups (e.g., municipality administrative or HR staff and central labor union advisors). The email contained links to the toolkit's components and an anonymous electronic survey for summative assessment. The questionnaire covered respondents’ background and roles (filter question), followed by questions about perceptions and usability of the toolkit, with opportunities to add comments in free text.

The intended audience evaluated the revised vignette videos. Eight school participants responded that the videos addressed relevant issues and were convincing to a high or very high extent. Only one participant expressed some ambivalence, while the other seven found that the integrated reflection questions facilitated a high or very high extent of relevant discussions. The positive ratings were corroborated by comments such as “trustworthy dialogues and actors.” Some participants preferred a quicker sequence of events, whereas others suggested that the videos could benefit from being extended (e.g., by providing more details of the characters’ backgrounds). The final evaluation of the vignette videos did not lead to any further changes.

In the final evaluation survey, participants from the primary target audience rated the informational video. They noted that it provides relevant insights, inspires their work, maintains an engaging dialogue, and effectively uses the film format to convey knowledge about the complex issue of cyber mistreatment to a high or very high extent. One open response recommendation was to segment the video into multiple parts. Another participant appreciated the time markers and suggested incorporating a content overview to assist in preparing staff workshops. Six teachers viewed the informational video without any prior context. For this group—outside the intended audience of this part of the toolkit—the video ratings varied from “low’ to very high extent” for the same questions. Some noted that they found the video lengthy and somewhat tedious, and they suggested breaking it into themes. We decided to include an overview of themes alongside the video while maintaining the unified conversation format.

Three school principals from the primary target group evaluated the text guide before final adjustments. These respondents believed that the guide inspires and contributes relevant knowledge necessary for addressing the problem of cyber mistreatment. Further, they found it written in appropriate language, and the layout supports the credibility of the messages to a high/very high extent. The open responses to the survey revealed that including concrete advice (e.g., regarding email correspondence issues) was appreciated. From a labor union perspective, it was suggested that content be condensed, connections to the legislative framework strengthened, and school principals should be emphasized that they need support from the organization. Furthermore, it was noted that learners’ rights to privacy concerning the TikTok video needed to be emphasized. These final inputs led to the incorporation of additional information and more concise, revised language in parts of the guide.

Finally, the complete toolkit was evaluated by stakeholders. The school principals (primary audience) unanimously found that the toolkit comprehensively addresses the requirements for advancing workplace conditions concerning third-party cyber mistreatment and that the suggestions for how the material could be used are feasible. One suggestion was to create corresponding videos to ease discussions about mutual expectations for online behavior with parents—a suggestion that exceeded the scope of the current project. From a labor union and administrative perspective, the toolkit was perceived as potentially overwhelming for schools, requiring a more explicit user guide. This feedback led to changes in how the toolkit was released. An overview of the content of the toolkit components is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of Priority Group, Aim, Format and Content of the Components Included in the Toolkit.

Components	Priority group	Aim	Format and content
Three vignette videos	Teachers, occupational safety and health representatives, and principals	Knowledge development and facilitation of dialogue and participatory practices	Short vignette videos of 3–7 min each with reflection points for discussion with an entire staff group.
			The first vignette shows a scenario where a parent initiates an email dialogue, expecting a quick response. The teacher plans to follow up the next day. As the day passes, the parent's emails become more aggressive. Finally, they copy the principal into the correspondence, and the principal eventually takes over. Reflection points encourage staff to discuss their familiarity with the situation, how they would respond, the appropriateness of principal intervention, alternative solutions, and ideas for how their school can work to prevent problematic email correspondence.
			In the second video, a student films a teacher in class, causing the teacher to worry about potential TikTok posting. The questions aim to spark discussion about personal experiences, ways of handling such situations, and improving organizational readiness for this kind of incident.
			The third vignette deals with parental interaction on Facebook. It critically discusses a situation at the school in which a teacher is mentioned by name. The questions intend to stimulate reflections on available opportunities for parental engagement with the school and actions that schools can take.
Text guide	Principals, occupational safety, and health representatives	Knowledge development and process support for developing policies, routines, and infrastructure to improve OSH management	A booklet that provides knowledge, information, and inspiration to enable proactive and reactive solutions to cyber mistreatment as a work environment problem. The booklet focuses on an organizational level and includes instructions on how to use the entire toolkit. It contains a brief outline of the legislative framework, advice on how to start a systematic mapping process, information related to developing local policies and routines, a hands-on guide for beginning a participatory process in the staff group based on the toolkit and some practical advice.
Conversation video	Principals, occupational safety, and health representatives	Knowledge development, support for developing policies, routines, and infrastructure	A 1-hr structured conversation between two experts to deepen viewers’ understanding of the cyber mistreatment phenomenon and broaden their perspectives.
			The topics discussed in the video include how cyber mistreatment can be seen as part of a larger problem, the consequences for individuals and organizations, and how such aggressions can be prevented through bolstering occupational safety and health management.

Release of the Toolkit

From the outset, the tools developed within the project were planned to be uploaded and distributed on a well-established website developed in a previous project to bridge psychosocial work environment research and practice. Initially, we planned to upload a brief introductory text about cyber mistreatment and links to the tools. However, input from the evaluation survey indicated that users needed a more comprehensive solution with concrete instructions on the intended use. In response, we decided to improve the webpage's content by creating a complete theme package (https://copsoq.se/tema/digitala-aggressioner-i-skolan/om-forskningsprojektet) dedicated to school principals, OSH representatives, and their local support functions. The theme included the following subpages: Introduction, How to get started; Step 1: Individual preparation; Step 2: Joint preparation; Step 3: Theme meeting with staff; Step 4: Following up, and finally, Resources & reading suggestions. To provide a better overview of the suggested use of the toolkit in practice, we informed about the intended target group and the expected time needed for each step. In addition, we provided users visual support in the form of process diagrams, along with text explanations, links to the tools, and some good advice.

The toolkit was officially released in October 2023, and for this launch, we planned and conducted a webinar. Information about the webinar was shared through professional networks, union magazines, web pages, and LinkedIn. Over 60 users registered to attend the webinar; however, the number was considerably higher, as some schools had gathered their entire teaching teams to watch and participate in the event. A second toolkit release occurred during the project funder's final web-based conference, which nearly two thousand people attended. The mediás significant interest in the phenomenon and the numerous interviews we gave across television, newspapers, and podcasts also drew attention to the toolkit, as we asked journalists to share the link to our webpage during each interview. We also received multiple invitations to present our research to various stakeholders at regional and national levels, including one of the largest national unions for school leaders, where the toolkit was showcased. Since launching the toolkit, our introduction page has had over 2,300 unique visitors, generating approximately 100 new unique monthly visitors. Finally, we were contacted by “Sunt Arbetsliv,” a popular platform run by representatives from trade unions and employer organizations, disseminating knowledge about preventive measures in OSH. This resulted in a themed page on their platform offering a film and text tailored to reach a broader audience than just schools.

Ethical Considerations

The Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2019-05196) approved the research project. All informants received written information about the project before the interviews and were informed that their participation was voluntary. This information also explained how confidentiality was maintained, how the data would be used, and that they could withdraw their consent at any time. All participants and participating organizations were assured confidentiality. Based on this information, informed consent was obtained verbally from each informant before the interviews. No ethical approval was required for the final evaluation survey; however, participants were informed corresponding to the interviews, made aware that they should avoid disclosing sensitive information that could reveal their identity, and that submitting their responses was considered consent to participate.

Discussion

In this project, we designed a research-based toolkit to support schools in developing their capacity to promote a healthy digital work environment for relations with service users. Our study shows how design thinking was a valuable framework for transforming findings from applied work–life research into a toolkit that helps workplaces develop their capability to address cyber mistreatment. The toolkit underwent formative and summative evaluations, all yielding positive outcomes supporting its effectiveness. The iterative design process, which incorporated ongoing feedback, was inspiring and helped us enhance the toolkit to serve educational staff. However, we encountered a challenge: Many schools were interested in participating in research interviews and contributing to the co-design process, mainly because they wanted early access to the toolkit resources. Nevertheless, they were less motivated to complete the final evaluation survey. This may be because we, to some extent, took an expert role, maintaining the power to make decisions and develop the tools based on participant input and feedback. The consequential power imbalance is at odds with the principles of Participatory Action Research, which emphasize the need to intentionally distribute power among participants to enable them to become equal partners in the process (Baum et al., 2006). This was a deliberate methodological choice, and we believe that we achieved the most important part of collaboration in a time-efficient way for both parties toward the specific goal of co-designing a set of tools.

Key differences exist between how collaborative methods are typically employed when targeting a single company (see e.g., Mohrman et al., 2008) and, as in the current project, when targeting an industry where multiple organizations face the same problem. Organizational projects often aim to build a competitive advantage by addressing specific internal issues, which facilitates in-depth, long-term collaboration between external experts and internal stakeholders, generates practical knowledge for the company, and contributes to theory for academia. In contrast, the design thinking approach used in the current project begins with a research-identified broader problem that affects multiple organizations within an industry and builds on existing theories to identify viable solutions and tools for organizations to implement. Despite these differences, both approaches also share significant similarities. They aim for practical solutions to real problems, depend on collaboration between external experts and internal stakeholders, and require strong management engagement. Furthermore, both necessitate understanding change dynamics and a commitment to building future capacities to sustain long-term impact.

How the Research-Based Tool Impacted Capacity Development

Workplace capacity development is essential and may result in many benefits. Cyber mistreatment is expected to take on new forms as technology advances, society changes, and the context for running schools evolves. In this regard, supporting capacity development is a strategic intervention method with the advantage of extending beyond immediate situations. Furthermore, providing the toolkit as a free download makes it easily accessible so all schools can incorporate cyber mistreatment into their ongoing work to improve the working environment. Finally, the toolkit may be helpful for school principals to make their case regarding the need for supporting resources to handle cyber mistreatment (e.g., HR, information technology (IT), and legal advisory departments). However, capacity development necessitates robust support and commitment from management, as busy work schedules and competing priorities can complicate the prioritization of OSH management. Incorporating capacity development related to cyber mistreatment in the legislative framework may help overcome the challenge, ensuring an ongoing process and effective knowledge transfer to new staff—factors essential for capacity development.

Pros and Cons of Tailoring the Toolkit

Managing cyber mistreatment from service users is an emerging challenge in all contexts involving clients, customers, and patients. Tailoring the toolkit specifically for schools may enhance the likelihood of its implementation in practice. However, the tailoring may limit the future use of the toolkit to the educational sector or require adaptations for other contexts. Still, dissemination of the toolkit from webpages targeting work environment stakeholders in general—and an anticipated public debate—may contribute to highlighting the problem beyond the educational sector in Sweden. The text guide and (optional) subtitles for the videos have been translated into English to facilitate transferability to schools beyond Sweden.

A Toolkit Is a First Step, but There Is Also a Need for Policy-Level Actions

A crucial implication for practice is to inform employers of their legal responsibilities and obligations to prevent digital work environment risks and promote healthy work conditions for employees. This indicates the necessity of supporting school principals by ensuring adequate time and human and financial resources, setting up accountability mechanisms, and promoting knowledge sharing among schools. In the Nordic countries, labor unions for teachers and principals have a crucial role in this process. Independent of context, however, there is a need for authorities to clarify legislation on employer responsibilities regarding cyber mistreatment from service users as digitalization continues, along with increasingly high proportions of service industry workers.

Conclusions

The toolkit builds on the importance of structured, participatory, proactive, preventive strategies in occupational health and digital well-being. Taking departure in the emerging work environment hazard of cyber mistreatment, this study highlights the value of applying design thinking and the PSC framework to foster innovative, user-centered solutions that support capacity development and facilitate the transfer of research into practice. Future research should explore the long-term impact and scalability of these approaches across various organizational contexts to further strengthen the implementation of legislation, particularly in addressing complex challenges such as cyber mistreatment.