4.5 Article

Comparison of Physical, Occupational, and Sociocognitive Characteristics of Corporate and Private Taxi Drivers in Korea

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9020224

Keywords

occupational health; motor vehicle; health risk behavior

Funding

  1. Konkuk University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the physical, occupational, and sociocognitive characteristics of corporate and private taxi drivers, finding that corporate taxi drivers had worse general physical health status, higher working intensity, and a higher incidence rate of traffic accidents.
Taxis are a form of public transport which is very closely related to the safety of the public. Although private and corporate taxis have quite different characteristics, there have only been a few studies comparing the characteristics of corporate and private taxis. Moreover, among various characteristics, research was conducted mainly focusing on occupational characteristics. This study was undertaken to compare various physical, occupational, and sociocognitive characteristics of corporate and private taxi drivers. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from 22 August to 11 September 2018. The subjects of this study were 960 corporate and private taxi drivers over 30 years old in Seoul to compare the means and association between private and corporate taxi drivers' characteristics. In terms of the physical characteristics, corporate taxi drivers' general physical health status was worse. In terms of the occupational characteristics, corporate taxi drivers had a high working intensity, and the incidence rate of traffic accidents and near misses was also high. This comparison of the characteristics of corporate and private taxis is expected to serve as evidence for developing tailored policies and programs to improve the health of corporate and private taxi drivers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available