Unit of Occupational Medicine, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 May 1;46(3):235-247. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3875. Epub 2020 Jan 5.
Objectives The lack of a common definition for precarious employment (PE) severely hampers the comparison of studies within and between countries, consequently reducing the applicability of research findings. We carried out a systematic review to summarize how PE has been conceptualized and implemented in research and identify the construct's dimensions in order to facilitate guidance on its operationalization. Methods According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched Web of Science and Scopus for publications with variations of PE in the title or abstract. The search returned 1225 unique entries, which were screened for eligibility. Exclusion criteria were (i) language other than English, (ii) lack of a definition for PE, and (iii) non-original research. A total of 63 full-text articles were included and qualitative thematic-analysis was performed in order to identify dimensions of PE. Results We identified several theory-based definitions of PE developed by previous researchers. Most definitions and operationalizations were either an accommodation to available data or the direct result of qualitative studies identifying themes of PE. The thematic-analysis of the selected articles resulted in a multidimensional construct including the following three dimensions: employment insecurity, income inadequacy, and lack of rights and protection. Conclusions Despite a growing number of studies on PE, most fail to clearly define the concept, severely restricting the advancement of the research of PE as a social determinant of health. Our combined theoretical and empirical review suggests that a common multidimensional definition could be developed and deployed in different labor market contexts using a variety of methodological approaches.
目的 不稳定就业(PE)缺乏通用定义,严重阻碍了国内外研究之间的比较,从而降低了研究结果的适用性。我们进行了一项系统综述,总结了 PE 在研究中的概念化和实施方式,并确定了该构念的维度,以便为其操作提供指导。
方法 根据 PRISMA 指南,我们在 Web of Science 和 Scopus 上搜索了标题或摘要中带有 PE 变体的出版物。搜索返回了 1225 个唯一条目,并对其进行了资格筛选。排除标准为:(i)语言非英语,(ii)缺乏 PE 的定义,以及(iii)非原始研究。共有 63 篇全文文章被纳入,并进行了定性主题分析,以确定 PE 的维度。
结果 我们确定了之前研究人员提出的几种基于理论的 PE 定义。大多数定义和操作化方法要么是对现有数据的适应,要么是直接源自定性研究确定的 PE 主题。对选定文章的主题分析得出了一个多维构念,包括以下三个维度:就业不安全、收入不足以及缺乏权利和保护。
结论 尽管关于 PE 的研究越来越多,但大多数研究都未能明确定义该概念,这严重限制了 PE 作为健康社会决定因素的研究进展。我们的理论和实证综述表明,可以在不同的劳动力市场背景下使用各种方法学方法开发和实施通用的多维定义。