ArticleBMC public health2025
Health-related quality of life among healthcare workers: a comparative analysis using regression, conditional tree and forests.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the potential importance of health care workers (HCWs) in maintaining and improving the health of society, we decided to investigate the factors affecting the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of HCWs using machine learning.
methodsThis study is a cross-sectional, population-based study that used baseline data from the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences' Employees' Cohort (SUMSEC), which consisted of 7073 individuals aged 20 to 70 years. To more accurately identify determinants of HRQoL, we applied multiple linear regression along with some machine learning algorithms, including conditional tree, conditional forest, and random forest. Then, the fit of these methods was compared using mean square error (MSE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), R
resultsOn the test dataset, the multiple linear regression and conditional forest methods showed similar performance and produced more reliable predictions, with higher correlations and R² values, and lower MSE and RMSE than the random forest and decision tree methods. Moreover, the most important factors affecting the HRQoL of HCWs were sleep quality, underlying diseases, sex, and education.
conclusionsIn our study, multiple linear regression and conditional forest performed equally well. Therefore, the associations between predictor variables and HRQoL were likely simple. In addition, demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors influence the HRQoL of HCWs. Recognizing and addressing these factors through targeted interventions and supportive policies can help improve the overall well-being and resilience of the HCWs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.