Cargando…

Precarious employment and general, mental and physical health in Stockholm, Sweden: a cross-sectional study

Objectives: To investigate the association between precarious employment and health in a sample of non-standard employees in Stockholm County, Sweden, by addressing three specific research questions: is the degree of precarious employment (low, moderate, high) associated with self-rated. . . (a) gen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jonsson, Johanna, Matilla-Santander, Nuria, Kreshpaj, Bertina, Johansson, Gun, Kjellberg, Katarina, Burström, Bo, Östergren, Per-Olof, Nilsson, Karin, Strömdahl, Susanne, Orellana, Cecilia, Bodin, Theo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7917568/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32933426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494820956451
Descripción
Sumario:Objectives: To investigate the association between precarious employment and health in a sample of non-standard employees in Stockholm County, Sweden, by addressing three specific research questions: is the degree of precarious employment (low, moderate, high) associated with self-rated. . . (a) general health, (b) mental health, (c) musculoskeletal pain? Methods: Web-based respondent-driven sampling was used to recruit a sample of 415 employees in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2016–2017. Questionnaire data were collected on employment conditions (the Swedish version of the employment precariousness scale (EPRES-Se)), general health, mental health and musculoskeletal pain. EPRES-Se scores were categorised as low, moderate or high. Generalised linear models with Poisson distribution, log link functions and robust variances were applied for calculating crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR; aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. Results: The prevalence ratios of poor self-rated general and mental health increased with increased degree of precariousness, as indicated by estimates of moderate precarious employment (a(2)PR(Moderate) 1.44 (CI 0.98–2.11); a(2)PR(Moderate) 1.13 (CI 0.82–1.62)), and high precarious employment (a(2)PR(High) 1.78 (CI 1.21–2.62); a(2)PR(High) 1.69 (CI 1.25–2.28)), albeit only significantly so for high precarious employment. Conclusions: This is the first study in Sweden reporting on the association between precarious employment, as measured with a multidimensional scale, and multiple health outcomes. The results add to the evidence of an association between precarious employment and self-rated poor general and mental health. Larger, representative studies with longitudinal designs using the EPRES-Se are called for in order to strengthen these results and the already existing evidence of the harm of precarious employment.