Evidence mapPaperPMID 38699429Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Effective analysis of job satisfaction among medical staff in Chinese public hospitals: a random forest model.

Chengcheng Li, Xuehui Meng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Chengcheng LiDepartment of Health Service Management, Humanities and Management School, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Xuehui MengDepartment of Health Service Management, Humanities and Management School, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study explored the factors and influence degree of job satisfaction among medical staff in Chinese public hospitals by constructing the optimal discriminant model. Methods: The participant sample is based on the service volume of 12,405 officially appointed medical staff from different departments of 16 public hospitals for three consecutive years from 2017 to 2019. All medical staff (doctors, nurses, administrative personnel) invited to participate in the survey for the current year will no longer repeat their participation. The importance of all associated factors and the optimal evaluation model has been calculated. Results: The overall job satisfaction of medical staff is 25.62%. The most important factors affecting medical staff satisfaction are: Value staff opinions (Q10), Get recognition for your work (Q11), Democracy (Q9), and Performance Evaluation Satisfaction (Q5). The random forest model is the best evaluation model for medical staff satisfaction, and its prediction accuracy is higher than other similar models. Conclusion: The improvement of medical staff job satisfaction is significantly related to the improvement of democracy, recognition of work, and increased employee performance. It has shown that improving these five key variables can maximize the job satisfaction and motivation of medical staff. The random forest model can maximize the accuracy and effectiveness of similar research.

Indexed as

Hospitals, PublicJob SatisfactionAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelChinaFemaleHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMiddle AgedRandom ForestSurveys and Questionnairesjob satisfactionkey associated factorslarge public hospitalsmedical staffrandom forest model

Identifiers

PMID38699429
PMCPMC11063264

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.