ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2019
Distinguishing groups and exploring health differences among multiple job holders aged 45 years and older.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of poor self-rated health and common mental disorder among persistently precarious employed adults.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Multiple Job Holding, Job Changes, and Associations with Gestational Diabetes and Pregnancy-Related Hypertension in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Stress and the gig economy: it's not all shifts and giggles.Industrial health · 2023Article
- Understanding the health outcomes of the work pattern transformation in the age of gig economy: an investigation of the association between multiple-job holding and health status in the United States and China.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo identify distinct groups of older multiple job holders and to explore health differences between these groups.
methodsWe selected respondents from STREAM, a Dutch cohort study among persons aged 45 years and older, who reported having multiple jobs (N = 702). We applied latent class analysis to identify groups of multiple job holders. The association between these groups and health, measured with the SF-12, was studied cross-sectionally and longitudinally (1 year of follow-up), using linear regression analyses.
resultsFour groups of older multiple job holders were identified: (1) a vulnerable group (N = 145), who preferred having one job, and had jobs with high demands and low resources; (2) an indifferent group (N = 134), who did not experience many benefits or disadvantages of multiple job holding (MJH); (3) a satisfied hybrid group, who were all self-employed in their second job (N = 310); and (4) a satisfied combination group, who all had a second job as an employee (N = 113). Both the satisfied hybrid and satisfied combination groups preferred MJH and experienced benefits of it. At baseline, the vulnerable group experienced significantly lower physical and mental health than the other groups. We found no significant differences regarding changes in health after 1 year.
conclusionsFour groups of older multiple job holders could be distinguished. The vulnerable group experienced lower physical and mental health at baseline than the other three groups. Policies and interventions supporting vulnerable multiple job holders may need to be developed. Future research is recommended to take heterogeneity among multiple job holders into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.