Predictive Models for Canadian Healthcare Workers Mental Health During COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: COVID-19 impact on the population's mental health has been reported worldwide. Predicting healthcare workers' mental health and life stress is needed to proactively plan for future emergencies. DESIGN: Statistics Canada has surveyed Canadian healthcare workers and those working in healthcare settings to gauge their perceived mental health and perceived life stress. SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers in Canada. SUBJECTS: A sample of 18,139 healthcare workers respondents. ANALYSIS: Eight algorithms, including Logistic Regression, Random Forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), K Nearest Neighbours (KNN), Adaptive boost (AdaBoost), Multi-layer perceptron (MLP), XGBoost, and LightBoost. AUC scores, accuracy and precision were measured for all models. RESULTS: XGBoost provided the highest performing model AUC score (AUC = 82.07%) for predicting perceived mental health, and Random Forest performed the best for predicting perceived life stress (AUC = 77.74%). Perceived health, age group of participants, and perceived mental health compared to before the pandemic were found to be the most important 3 features to predict perceived mental health and perceived stress. Perceived mental health compared to before the pandemic was the most important predictor for perceived life stress. CONCLUSION: Our models are highly predictive of healthcare workers' perceived mental health and life stress. Implementing scalable, non-expensive virtual mental health solutions to address mental health challenges in the workplace could mitigate the impact of workplace conditions on healthcare workers' mental health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".