Labour market strategies addressing precarious employment and its impacts: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Precarious employment (PE), characterized by reduced worker rights, and employment and income insecurity, has complex public health implications including negative impacts on workers’ mental and physical health, occupational health and safety, wellbeing, and inequities in access to health and social protections. There is, however, a knowledge gap regarding effectiveness of interventions. We describe findings from a review of evaluated interventions with potential to address PE. Methods Our systematic review followed the 2020 PRISMA framework and covered PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and sources of grey literature. We included qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods studies evaluating initiatives to reduce workers’ PE published from 2000 to 2021 and focused on adult workers. Results The 23 eligible studies from across the world evaluated diverse strategies addressing PE including tax and trade reforms, industrial disputes legislation, business registration, and use of incentives to stimulate permanent contracts. Also included were union strategies to reach precarious workers, the provision of social benefits, and youth apprenticeships. Generally, while most initiatives had the potential to tackle certain PE aspects, they usually acted only on one or two PE dimensions. Additionally, the evaluation components were missing key details, thus, limiting the generalizability of findings, as did the heterogeneity of study designs, initiative purposes, economic and political context, and diverse populations targeted. Conclusions The increase in PE prevalence and its complex health implications requires sustainable upstream public health solutions. Multidisciplinary collaborations among public health and occupational health practitioners along with researchers, evaluation specialists, economists, and politicians could facilitate the implementation and evaluation of policies and standards regulating and monitoring PE and its health impacts. Key messages • Precarious employment has complex public health implications. • Sustainable solutions to address precarious employment must be upstream and multidisciplinary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".