ArticleAnnals of family medicine
A Brief Tool to Screen Patients for Precarious Employment: A Validation Study.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrecarious employment, defined by temporary contracts, unstable employment, or job insecurity, is increasingly common and is associated with inconsistent access to benefits, lower income, and greater exposure to physical and psycholosocial hazards. Clinicians can benefit from a simple approach to screen for precarious employment to improve their understanding of a patient's social context, help with diagnoses, and inform treatment plans and intersectional interventions. Our objective was to validate a screening tool for precarious employment.
methodsWe used a 3-item screening tool that covered key aspects of precarious employment: non-standard employment, variable income, and violations of occupational health and safety rights and protections. Answers were compared with classification using the Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario Employment Index. Participants were aged 18 years and older, fluent in English, and employed. They were recruited in 7 primary care clinic waiting rooms in Toronto, Canada over 12 months.
resultsA total of 204 people aged 18-72 years (mean 38 [SD 11.3]) participated, of which 93 (45.6%) identified as men and 119 (58.3%) self-reported as White. Participants who reported 2 or more of the 3 items as positive were almost 4 times more likely to be precariously employed (positive likelihood ratio = 3.84 [95% CI, 2.15-6.80]).
conclusionsA 3-item screening tool can help identify precarious employment. Our tool is useful for starting a conversation about employment precarity and work conditions in clinical settings. Implementation of this screening tool in health settings could enable better targeting of resources for managing care and connecting patients to legal and employment support services.
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.