ArticleJournal of occupational health
Inequality in workplace support for various types of precarious workers compared with permanent workers in Japan: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of occupational health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of occupational safety and health among foreign construction workers in South Korea: a comparative analysis with Japan.Industrial health · 2026Article
- Association between workplace cooperation and depressive symptoms differs according to employment type: the 7th Korean Working Conditions Survey.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
- Impacts of Working Hours, Wages, and Regular Employment Opportunity on Suicide Mortalities of Employed and Unemployed Individuals before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Exploring the association between non-regular employment and adverse birth outcomes: an analysis of national data in Japan.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2024Article
- Inequality in workplace support for various types of precarious workers compared with permanent workers in Japan: A cross-sectional study.Journal of occupational healthArticle
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
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine, by sex, whether precarious workers in Japan receive less support in the workplace than permanent workers.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire in 2022. We stratified participants by sex and performed modified Poisson regression analysis. The outcomes were support from supervisors, co-workers, occupational health professionals, and no one. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) were calculated for contract workers, part-time workers, and dispatched workers, using permanent workers as reference.
resultsThis study had 21 047 participants. For men, 87.9% were permanent workers; for women, 50.7% were permanent workers and 37.3% were part-time workers. For workplace support, 47.5% of men and 45.2% of women selected superiors; 41.8% of men and 50.5% of women selected colleagues; 16.8% of men and 6.2% of women selected occupational health professionals. Female contract workers were less likely to receive support from their supervisors (aPR 0.88) or co-workers (aPR 0.89). Male part-time workers were less likely to be supported by their co-workers (aPR 0.86). Dispatched workers were less likely to be supported by their supervisors (men aPR 0.71, women aPR 0.84) and co-workers (men aPR 0.73, women aPR 0.77). Part-time and dispatched workers were less likely to receive support from occupational health professionals.
conclusionsPrecarious workers could get less workplace support than permanent workers. This may contribute to occupational health problems with precarious workers.
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.