A systematic review on mediators and moderators of job insecurity–health relation before and after COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Job insecurity is one of the most hazardous work stressors in the twenty-first century, placing employees between employment and unemployment may threaten employees’ health in the workplaces. Using a systematic review, the first aim of this study is to list the mediators and moderators of the link between job insecurity and health-related outcomes, and second, to explain and discuss the mechanisms that could explain the mediating and moderating effects. Design/methodology/approach We searched four databases (Science Direct, PubMed, Springer Link and Google Scholar) from 2008 to 2018 to detect these mediators and moderators. Also, as the study was conducted during COVID-19 pandemic, we particularly searched and reported the same associations over this period (2019–2022). Findings The results of the review suggest that job insecurity negatively influences a wide range of both health- and safety-related outcomes in the workplace. The results also showed that the most studied mediator and moderator of the job insecurity-health link over the past 10 years has been workload and employability. During COVID-19, the number of studies on mediators were more than moderators and coping strategies appeared to gain more research attention. Additionally, this review suggests that, to explain the mediation and moderation effects, a combination of cognitive appraisal theory and the conservation of resources theory can be used. Originality/value Although this review suggests that job insecurity detrimentally influences employee health, the severity of this impact on health-related outcomes may vary by the effects of various moderators.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".