ArticleJournal of occupational health2020
Subjective employment perspective among older workers with and without migrant background in Germany-Results of the lidA cohort study.
Article in Journal of occupational health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Subjective employment perspective among older workers with and without migrant background in Germany-Results of the lidA cohort study.Journal of occupational health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the subjective employment perspective in higher working age for different employee groups with migrant background (EMB) and without (non-EMB), meaning willing, being able, and planning to work until the individual state pension age (iSPA).
methodsA representative sample of socially insured employees born in 1959 or 1965 was surveyed in 2011, 2014, and 2018 with computer-assisted personal interviews. The current cross-sectional analysis is based on data from the third study wave (n = 3286) of the lidA cohort study. EMB were differentiated via generation (first generation, G1, vs second generation, G2) or nationality (German vs foreign). Applying bivariate statistics with the tests of independence and block-wise logistic regressions, group differences were investigated. Sex, age, educational level, net household income, health, and work factors were considered as covariates.
resultsWhen comparing subgroups of EMB, significant differences appeared in bivariate analyses for willing and planning to work. G1 were to a higher degree planning to work longer than G2 and those with foreign nationality were more willing and planning than those with German nationality. Multivariate analyses revealed significant differences of G1 and non-EMB for planning, being significant in the fully adjusted model, but not for willing.
conclusionThe findings underline the need for differentiation of migrant groups in social research and policy. When it comes to extended working lives, the first-generation migrant group, as well as foreigners may constitute risk groups and require increased attention from a work, health, and economic point of view.
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.