Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39753602›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Exploring the effects of perceived social support and psychological distress through mediation and multigroup analyses in work-related quality of life.

Sıdıka Ece Yılmaz, Şenel Çıtak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sıdıka Ece YılmazRectorship/Career Planning Application and Research Center, Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University, Adana, Turkey. eyilmaz@atu.edu.tr.
Şenel ÇıtakFaculty of Education/Department of Guidance and Psychological Counseling, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Work-related quality of life has emerged as a central focus in the field of occupational health due to its impact on individual well-being and overall quality of life. So, it is crucial to enhance the current theory by conducting a study on the concept across different sectors. Also, the specific mechanisms through which perceived social support influences work-related quality of life remain underexplored. The role of psychological distress as a potential mediator in this relationship has not been investigated. Thus, the study aimed to explore the mediating role of psychological distress in this relationship, while also examining potential gender differences. The study, conducted with 401 teachers through a questionnaire, utilized the AMOS program for data analysis. The findings supported the direct effects among the variables and the mediating role of psychological distress. Additionally, the impact of psychological distress on work-related quality of life was found to be higher for females, but no differences for other paths. The study contributes to the literature by addressing the gap in understanding the mechanisms regarding work-related quality of life. The results highlight the importance of considering psychological distress and gender differences in interventions aimed at improving work-related quality of life.

Indexed as

Psychological DistressQuality of LifeSocial SupportAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational HealthSex FactorsStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkplaceGender differencesMediation analysisMultigroup analysisPerceived social supportPsychological distressWork-related quality of life

Identifiers

PMID39753602
PMCPMC11699210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.