MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028996334 · doi:10.3390/ijerph17113764

Risk Factors for Depressive Symptoms in Long-Haul Truck Drivers

2020· article· en· W3028996334 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander M. Crizzle, Maeve Mclean, Jennifer Malkin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsDepression (economics)StressorOccupational safety and healthMental healthDepressive symptomsHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryOccupational stressSuicide preventionInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlRisk factorCross-sectional studyClinical psychologyPsychologyEnvironmental healthCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work-related stress is a salient risk factor for depression. While long-haul truck drivers (LHTDs) face a myriad of occupational pressures and demands, little research has examined predictors of depressive symptoms in this occupational group. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of depressive symptoms in LHTDs. A cross-sectional study was used to examine depressive symptoms, health and working conditions in a sample of 107 LHTDs (mean age of 50.7 ± 12.3; 95.6% were men) at truck stops from five Western Canadian cities. The findings show that 44% of LHTDs reported symptoms of depression in the past 12 months. Severe work-related stress, the use of psychiatric medications and broken sleep were significant predictors of depressive symptomology accounting for 41% of the variance. The findings suggest that LHTDs experience a host of occupational stressors that are embedded within the transportation industry that may increase the risk for depressive symptoms. Mental health promotion efforts that improve sleep quality, decrease work-related demands and pressures, and increase the use of psychiatric medication may reduce rates of depressive symptoms among LHTDs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207