The measure of precarious employment and its impact on the mental health of workers: A systematic review 2007-2020.

BACKGROUND: Precarious employment conditions can influence the worker's mental health; however, there is no consensus regarding the definition of precarious employment or the way it is measured. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to identify existing research of the conceptual framework, the ways to measure precarious employment and its impact on the mental health of workers. METHODS: A systematic review with the strategic search for observational-empirical and qualitative studies published between 2007 and 2020 in Embase, Scopus and PubMed, full text, in English and Spanish. Studies were selected and excluded, according to eligibility criteria. Two independent reviewers and one arbitrator evaluated the quality of selected papers with the STROBE guidelines for observational studies and SRQR for qualitative ones. RESULTS: 408 studies were obtained, 21 met inclusion criteria, in 14 studies precarious employment was measured one-dimensionally. Of these, 11 with the dimension of temporality and three with insecurity. Four studies it was measured in a multidimensional way, with the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES) and in three qualitative designs, with different categories of analysis. Mental health was measured with SF-36 (n = 4), GHQ-12 (n = 3) and CES-D (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The concept of precarious employment requires a multidimensional construct, although the tendency to measure precarious employment is one-dimensional. Regardless of how is measured, this has a negative impact on the mental health of workers. The outcomes related to this social determinant included depression, depressive symptoms, psychological distress, stress, and suicidal thoughts. Youths, women, people with low levels of education and immigrants are the groups that show the major precariousness.

Measuring Precarious Employment: Type of Contract Can Lead to Serious Misclassification Error.

This study aims to assess the accuracy of temporary employment as indicator or proxy measure of precarious employment. Using sensitivity and specificity analysis, we compared type of contract (temporary versus permanent) with the Chilean version of the multidimensional Employment Precariousness Scale. Temporary employment exhibited very low sensitivity (<30%) (specificity >90%), resulting in roughly 38% of false negative results. Different EPRES-Ch cut-off scores produced similar results. The main implication of these findings is that the public health relevance of precarious employment is being underestimated both in terms of prevalence and of its association with health, making it critical that valid multidimensional measures of precarious employment be implemented.