Unit of Occupational Medicine, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Jul 1;44(4):341-350. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3720. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
Objectives Precarious employment conditions have become more common in many countries over the last decades, and have been linked to various adverse health outcomes. The objective of this review was to collect and summarize existing scientific research of the relationship between dimensions of precarious employment and the rate of occupational injuries. Methods A protocol was developed in accordance with the PRISMA-P checklist for systematic literature reviews. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for articles on observational studies from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand published in peer-reviewed journals 1990-2017. A minimum of two independent reviewers assessed each article with respect to quality and eligibility criteria. Articles of high/moderate quality meeting all specified inclusion criteria were included in the review. Results The literature search resulted in 471 original titles, of which 17 articles met all the inclusion criteria. The most common exposures were in descending order; temporary employment, multiple jobs, working for a subcontractor at the same worksite/temp agency, part-time, self-employment, hourly pay, union membership, insurance benefits, flexible versus fixed work schedule, wages, job insecurity, work-time control and precarious career trajectories. Ten studies reported a positive association between precarious employment and occupational injuries. Four studies reported a negative association, and three studies did not show any significant association. Conclusions This review supports an association between some of the dimensions of precarious employment and occupational injuries; most notably for multiple jobholders and employees of temp agencies or subcontractors at the same worksite. However, results for temporary employment are inconclusive. There is a need for more prospective studies of high quality, designed to measure effect sizes as well as causality.
目的
在过去几十年中,许多国家的不稳定就业状况变得更为普遍,并且与各种不良健康结果有关。本综述的目的是收集和总结现有科学研究,以了解不稳定就业的各个维度与职业伤害发生率之间的关系。
方法
我们按照 PRISMA-P 清单制定了方案,以进行系统文献综述。我们在北美、欧洲、澳大利亚和新西兰出版的同行评审期刊中,对 1990 年至 2017 年的观察性研究进行了文献检索。至少有两名独立的审查员对每篇文章的质量和资格标准进行了评估。符合所有指定纳入标准的高质量/中等质量文章被纳入综述。
结果
文献检索共产生了 471 篇原始标题,其中 17 篇文章符合所有纳入标准。最常见的暴露因素依次为:临时工、多份工作、在同一工作场所/临时机构为分包商工作、兼职、自营职业、时薪、工会会员、保险福利、灵活与固定工作时间表、工资、工作不安全感、工作时间控制和不稳定的职业轨迹。有 10 项研究报告称不稳定就业与职业伤害之间存在正相关关系。有 4 项研究报告称存在负相关关系,有 3 项研究未显示出任何显著关联。
结论
本综述支持一些不稳定就业维度与职业伤害之间存在关联,尤其是对于多份工作者以及在同一工作场所的临时工机构或分包商的雇员。然而,关于临时工的研究结果尚无定论。需要更多高质量的前瞻性研究来衡量效应大小和因果关系。