Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39541417›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Intersectionality and benefit receipt: The interplay between education, gender, age and migration background.

Jos Slabbekoorn, Ineke Maas, J Cok Vrooman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jos SlabbekoornDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8419-5703
Ineke MaasDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5041-7347
J Cok VroomanDepartment of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9306-8642

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines differences in benefit receipt using an intersectional approach. Intersectionality theory emphasizes the importance of the interplay of multiple social dimensions. Taking this as a starting point, the paper investigates how different combinations of three demographic variables plus education buffer or amplify benefit receipt and thereby create relatively advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Administrative data were used, sourced from Dutch registers that provide accurate and detailed information on benefit receipt for the entire Dutch population, including small and hard-to-reach segments. Multilevel Analyses of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) are performed to assess which intersectional groups are relatively advantaged or disadvantaged with respect to benefit receipt. Intersectional group differences are more pronounced for social assistance than for unemployment insurance. Complex combinations of education, gender, age and migration background are required to better understand differences in benefit receipt, especially for unemployment insurance.

Indexed as

Educational StatusAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSex FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsUnemploymentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39541417
PMCPMC11563431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.