ArticleBMJ open2024
Validation of the Employment Precariousness Scale and its associations with mental health outcomes: results from a prospective community-based study of pregnant women and their partners in Dresden, Germany.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Social determinants of mental health in Germany: a systematic scoping review mapping the landscape of researched determinants, outcome measures, and explanatory concepts.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Measurement of precarious work in Brazil: translation, adaptation and dimensionality of the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES-Br).Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
- Development of a formative index for precarious employment in Denmark.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Association Between Precarious Employment and Cognitive Decline: A Longitudinal Study of Middle-Aged and Older Workers in Korea.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Prepartum working conditions predict mental health symptoms 14 months postpartum in first-time mothers and their partners - results of the prospective cohort study "DREAM".BMC public 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo translate the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES) from Spanish into German (EPRES-Ge), adapt it to the German context, assess the psychometric properties and show prospective associations with mental health outcomes within the peripartum period.
designAnalyses encompassed descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the structure of the EPRES, and multivariate regression analyses with mental health outcomes 8 weeks after birth.
participantsSelf-report data from 3,455 pregnant women and their partners within the Dresden Study on Parenting, Work, and Mental Health prospective longitudinal cohort study were used.
resultsThe EPRES-Ge with five dimensions and 20 items showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.77). All scales showed good reliability coefficients of α=0.73-0.85 and good item-subscale correlations of r=0.63-0.98, with the exception of subscale rights, which showed poor reliability of α=0.30 and item-subscale correlations of r=0.45-0.68. Exploratory analysis and CFA confirmed the proposed five-dimensional structure, explaining 45.08% of the cumulative variance. Regression analyses with mental health outcomes after birth revealed statistically significant associations (
conclusionsThe EPRES-Ge is a valuable tool for assessing employment precariousness as a multidimensional construct. The scales could be adapted to the German working context. Precarious employment, as measured by the EPRES-Ge, is a determinant of mental health problems in young families.
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.