3.8 Article

Health Status, Type of Contract and Labour Force Participation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PREVENTION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10935-023-00759-7

关键词

Employment; Health; Logistic Models; Contracts; Precarious Employment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background, health status, type of contract, education and age may affect labour force participation. This study used European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions data and found that individuals in good health had higher labour force participation rates. The impact of temporary contracts and health status on labour force participation varied across countries.
BackgroundHealth status, type of contract, education and age might affect labour force participation (LFP). We investigated possible factors associated with LFP among European countries.MethodsEuropean Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) data of 149,798 individuals were used and the odds ratios were calculated in logistic regression analyses.ResultsLFP rates were higher among those in good health. Self-perceived poor health frequencies were higher in people with temporary contracts than in those with permanent contracts in Bulgaria, Finland, and Hungary, while they were lower in Republic of Serbia. Multivariate analyses revealed that having temporary contract, poor health, oldest age group, and lower educational level were associated with lower probability of being in paid employment in the total study population. Poor health was stronger driver of lower LFP than temporary contracts in Austria, Hungary, Iceland, Netherlands. Temporary contracts were stronger driver of lower LFP than poor health in Greece, Spain, Finland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia and total study population.ConclusionBoth poor health and temporary contracts were associated with lower LFP. The magnitude of these associations varied among countries. Worker's health status differed by type of contract in Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland and Serbia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据