PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Price, Sian
AU  - Shaw, Hannah
AU  - Morgan, Fiona
AU  - Lopez, Rocio Rodriguez
AU  - Little, Kirsty
AU  - Humphreys, Ciarán
TI  - Is any job better than no job? : A systematic review
AID  - 10.1101/2021.11.23.21266736
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.11.23.21266736
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/24/2021.11.23.21266736.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/24/2021.11.23.21266736.full
AB  - Objectives This systematic review addresses the question “Is any job better than no job?” Specifically, it compares health and well-being outcomes in those who are unemployed with those who are in jobs that could be considered poor or low quality and the impact of any movement between them.Method We conducted a systematic review following a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42020182794). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, ASSIA, TRIP, Google Scholar and 10 websites were searched in April 2020 and again in May 2021 without date limits. Two reviewers working independently screened search results against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A checklist for quantitative studies reporting correlations was used to critically appraise articles included at full text. We undertook synthesis without meta-analysis (narrative synthesis) and explored a range of variables (for example, study design and quality, type of outcome measure) that we considered might have an impact on the association between exposure and outcome.Results We included 25 studies reported in 30 journal articles. All 25 studies involved secondary analysis of data from national cohorts, including six from the UK. The most frequent outcomes reported were measures of mental well-being. There was considerable heterogeneity across included studies in terms of design, population, definition of poor/bad or low quality job and outcome types and measures. Overall the quality of the included studies was moderate. The evidence base is inconsistent. There are studies that suggested either labour market position might be preferable, but a number of studies found no statistically significant difference. Cohort and case- control studies looking at mental well-being outcomes showed some support for a poor job being better than unemployment. However, we did not find sufficient numbers of well-designed studies showing a strong association to support a causal relationship. Most included study designs were unable to distinguish whether changes in employment status occurred before a change in outcome. Three studies looking at employment transitions found that moving to a poor job from unemployment was not associated with improved mental health, but moving from a poor job to unemployment was associated with a deterioration.Conclusion Evidence that better health and well-being outcomes are more likely to be associated with a poor/bad or low quality job than with unemployment is inconsistent. Studies conducted in the UK suggest that a poor job is not significantly associated with better health and well-being outcomes than unemployment. The studies we identified do not allow us to distinguish whether this lack of association is the result of a state welfare regime preventing some of the worst ills associated with unemployment, or a reflection of job quality. The evidence base has significant limitations in study design and conduct. In summary, the evidence we found suggests it is not safe to assume that, in the UK, any job will lead to better health and well-being outcomes than unemployment.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementAll authors are employees of Public Health Wales. This work was undertaken as part of that employment.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are contained in the manuscript and supplementary material