ArticleEuropean journal of public health2024
Risk of unemployment and work disability among refugee and non-refugee migrants with incident psychotic disorders in Sweden and Denmark.
Article in European journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of a stepped-care trauma rehabilitation programme for migrants in Germany: the 'NAT counselling intervention' study protocol for a naturalistic parallel group trial with a regression discontinuity design for quasi-randomization.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Associations of migrant and refugee status with physical comorbidity and mortality among young adults with incident non-affective psychotic disorders.BMC public health · 2025Observational
- Prevalence and predictors of healthcare use for psychiatric disorders at 9 years after a first episode of psychosis: a Swedish national cohort study.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnemployment and work disability are common among individuals with non-affective psychotic disorders (NAPDs) but it is unknown whether rates differ among migrants and native-born individuals. The present study aimed to compare the risk of these outcomes during the first 5 years of illness in non-refugee migrants, refugees and native-born individuals with NAPDs in Sweden and Denmark-two countries with different immigration policies and models of early psychosis care.
methodsUsing national registers, we identified all individuals aged 18-35 years in Sweden and Denmark who received an incident NAPD diagnosis between 2006 and 2013 (N = 6750 and 8320, respectively). Cohorts were followed for 5 years to determine the days of unemployment and sickness absence (analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial models) and the time to receipt of disability pension (analyzed using complementary log-log models).
resultsRelative to their native-born peers, refugees and non-refugee migrants in Sweden and non-refugee migrants in Denmark were significantly less likely to have zero unemployment days (OR range: 0.54-0.72) and all migrant groups experienced more unemployment days (IRR range: 1.26-1.37). Results were largely unchanged after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. In the adjusted model, both Swedish migrant groups and refugees in Denmark were more likely to experience zero sickness absence days than native-born individuals (OR range: 1.48-1.56). Only refugees in Denmark were at greater risk of disability pension.
conclusionsNon-refugee migrants and refugees with NAPDs in both Sweden and Denmark are particularly vulnerable to experiencing unemployment. Targeted interventions may help to reduce these disparities and promote long-term work ability among migrant groups.
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.