A Mobile Phone App to Improve the Mental Health of Taxi Drivers: Single-Arm Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychological distress among taxi drivers is 5 times higher than that in the general population, and more than half of all drivers have experienced 3 or more potentially traumatic events in their lifetime. Nevertheless, help-seeking for mental health problems in this male-dominated, predominately immigrant workforce is low. Mobile technologies have the potential to increase mental health awareness, teach self-help skills, and encourage help-seeking in this hard-to-reach population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of Driving to Health, a mobile phone-friendly mental health website app designed for people working as taxi drivers. METHODS: Drivers (n=46) were recruited from the Melbourne Airport Taxi Holding Yard to participate in a single-arm trial. Self-reported, paper-based assessments were completed at baseline and at 1 month. Feasibility was measured by completion rates, representativeness of study participants, and levels of use. Acceptability was assessed by measuring users' perception of the quality of the app and anticipated levels of future use. The efficacy of Driving to Health to increase awareness, self-help behaviors, and intentions to seek help was assessed using the user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) and the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (GHSQ). Psychological symptoms were measured using the short form of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Data were analyzed using complete case analysis. RESULTS: In total, 42 participants comprising drivers from 10 different countries of origin, and 14 different languages, completed pre- and poststudy measures (42/46, 91% completion rate). Just under half (45%) of all users used the app more than once with an average visit of 4 min 8 seconds. Responding to the uMARS, 62% (26/42) of the participants said that they would recommend the app to many people. Nearly all (40/42, 95%) participants said that Driving to Health increased awareness of their own mental health; 86% (36/42) said that it increased their mental health knowledge; and 76% (32/42) said that it increased their self-help behaviors. Increases in help-seeking intentions on the GHSQ were not significant, and increases on all 3 scales of DASS-21 were not reliable or meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that Driving to Health is an acceptable and feasible electronic health intervention for a hard-to-reach population. Our findings also suggest that Driving to Health results in increases in mental health awareness, behaviors, and willingness to seek help.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".